This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the
information in books and make it universally accessible.
Google books
https://books.google.com
This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the
information in books and make it universally accessible.
Google books
https://books.google.com
&Y amd tena cl i
Gn itm itinouano—— -- ~. oes ne eee s
»-@- “ree ‘* s
rr ~ eee, of ms © - ;
. ~o * S ‘y -
r. - ~ . o-» oreo. enw
- - Se» i ede tt a
- a. - SOP O14 > Oe} Lee rent @ et
: - - . = * +@ew
- ‘* - . ~e «
: e + 4 mA . *-
Ce eee ae 7 ping tm -y
ae ee et ee - 2 pe AD « AAS
‘ee . ° | eee al a
* . ~* .
ewer oeg9 ° 6 +90 ees e . ‘* a
*-* _¢ e* Pe .* eo Gun . . - "5°. O84 v4
/ teers Been @ os oe ~- n mire Ss - “te reign @ gee) Oey te 64-60% phere POC DO+4 ode,
4« = .? *. . ° . - . 6 a
sevess «486 oededeos’ “he CPP OP rte Owe IOs ee > wa LOTS Laehow
» © . i Zz. . « ad erer .-+ rm ’ ah « “
pel em - 5 “ss oeeter— . on -— p bank ‘e+ wee + ne AP ees ee ne SPO eOe & dad alltel ie ee te “1 ; oe a
A y ss hy . w . we ’ Pa » ,.* | tiv - . ore @ Dade + 0
3 oe ee ee see. - - -* Da ae tO Seo a thee « 3 fe aebnd 1)! MS 09 Seale es Tee ones
~ vy - ° oer . _- * * @8 24 ie e Hy jog - +
‘ * .- ewes - : , - meg hk =: B's 29 ober +s * Mit ee Lom
=. . ~— ¢@ - \ . P : ee-te . < * ~ oo vs
al ~~ > as A ee eo oe | * ae “*
o-e eo ’ ys eohve, sees — re ~ es (Pere OH ae ’ 72 2+ C40 +o y o9 ++ a9 °?
’ , ' SOC4GO Coe ciao «+ @> “ernie” 28+ 80208 €F+-Ot10 on wer) a LET ep Sole ph
= ee o ue ‘- a + * ° +oe 8? Cengee « ord,
° be - m ‘ , +. , Cs ' aes * dea ie add
ss sn@-& #6 . i = , ‘ Det oe re -*@ + *2 2 . o 8 9 as
“ x — p. ° pee ‘ . * \*+ ee ae teh ae
“y i e s ** ' {se : “ee ‘ee
A ° * 7 | rere a * ° .
‘ ~ te - :
. : ‘ . a“ ae a. . ‘*
_S. a . - , > e-* wre * 54s °O +
e * * ’ ~ ‘ ' "#@*e ‘
. ° J - “4 Pi . *-«
’ ° t # ° ° ee x
* . * MU e wa ‘* - .
.* : - ~@ere .
- . , eee @e ,
. ** : + _? “em Bee «e ’ :
. } ’ + i =) ' ‘ —
. . ‘ - : ‘@ ‘ “7 & ‘ Pantie
“oe. + - #~@ © 1-9 ‘ . . :
+ ate ‘« ° ‘ . o» Oe rae ve Oe ae
. “Oana ae : - 4 b—- 4 a HH O-pey
e e+ “f° : ‘eae es «% ‘ + Vee ee ee, ne bw 8k
‘7a > *, 7 ’ J ; - "@-« b+ e heme ory rae
> . - . t a . _ + ie ose ‘eas Se @ b-gecole pop ¢
a 2 ee 5 ~ , « bdr ny beers
a * - —e* “*- 7 .* + ’ ' e+e . JOP a \ a rae ng
“F C8 te =e er ya +6 & ; ‘ror © Oe ors +O FR oe
><@ 48 e . . a . - ee ee ee ee ee rare
: ~ - “+ + bow oie ~ ane deens ertel Lon
“2 vi P Le & ee be © pe 4 Om re held rg
‘ . ee» te-* Mind ieee "atl, lle
°; Y a4 ‘ (_-—« + > & id See ‘ e+ © OG, Ps Fr
. - ' * 7,
& *6 ‘ gan *. e, ee T°? eases yy!
, - ~* «+ be . O16 gee KN @ eo Oe 6.08 5 oe 14
' ¢ ’ e ‘ae ' ~ oe tee ey #4
. be re PRO Reus bib oe tA ' Rooke tt
*"* a * 4 ’ ’ 7“ be ome e © Ge
ae A e* tee : - OW Hee inert
. “e- 2 oe ~ a? : - . ‘
rm _ e Me : ’ a) me © & & of we or, ,
- . pA ‘ or rey , Aiee Poel ©
*“o-* 7 wn oe . » 7 Vee ee ae . ’ Hie he ong
° =? tle ’ ~~* * °
* : POS FS) EGS HOSES Ss Pa ag Poe ne er avers Saew at ty ow Bh A rere
= poe > “es ibys ae Poy* 4 oo : ad a
- e+ weet e weue . o og . a te | = ~ ' + . . Pp ate he hs 00-1 4 op ‘ men : ane ee i sueeAn ey Se
oy pa Ae a - ! 4 ' *@g--o@ ’ ae Le er velo e*e"1°e - Leese o smi veeetke Upteaeee
“oe -#-* . . a m : he he - ‘ * .
° “— wr e@ce *.¢ ’ a/ Podge uO Lame ‘ Ph > een ¢ Boe ags ape oe = + attr e Sed a &
4 a Ps . . o > ~ os = “ . - « e
bas Md . oy 7 Vite ot A, oth a atoning Ot) ve an the teeg Gad, " area mw
4" _s e » ; 2 pee 294 yee: Mee pee by + FeO) Cred dere "on ene!
- / ‘ ? . ~ -_o- yay ~~) weno SL oe
~ . m eo. - vy Dd e000. 6. oes ers 0.90 4rbp tree beth da oo A,
. ae«'@ -? Q S.~4 . Ss hal . > Th) a i . oC 7 7) ‘< totaly 7.0 +904,
a ‘ Ml sh ° 7m" te Te ere a8 rr he bs ~?
\ ; ** ’ = . S toralhng a> hee lpia th he ne UTI TITAT Seri endty
° o ms Pp e 7. ” “2 VA) OM Cine ww 5.0 "Ore a nee at he ae oat
_ - — Y 1 ste rh hot JL fe +e agree wee
‘ ’ > ©T ) es 6 ‘ a” ee fee “ ; PT de WA pgh l. Se ere
J « * =. or * COS 08" O60 Oe «4 -) > Bo a tem age
tm w Fe OOO wm @ i) tL eee ee) ee > -* = fy
pene! oop" -* Wibhetesn | > A oe ‘
- » - ~ ° “198 Y WO + tegen whale é. ’ e —
> nf ‘eo ew! Se wee e@ uee. ‘ dead Myr
- P al <0. # ert Pebie - ® 4 rv + arm o “ae oe
. , - _* . OMS + 4G FAS Oe Be d,0400 . a tee ve “ee
— . . : Pe ‘ 00e.duukiin ey a ‘ hero t+ oar
> ~ ; mere - ‘eee Ce ee etrVAs J waa
® Cer eeet > “. ae - 7h ee we - Oe e-e oy 6 619 o- oe
: - ts . 6424 C29? 159 bun 6, . 1h He 60m be eee: ' wee
Oster Sete A + @neree es Feet ieee De
° o«« Lad ee. Phe i Pee
* wer rH bee @
*% ro hE
* , Ore Mone
re “« ‘< ‘Hh eee ©
- ~~ eo .
= p erhnree eee ee ren
* - < ~ ‘ °
F + dete es
° é¢ Pre yt ys 4 "
e . + . > > wd e +++ Or ee ‘ “TA ne
° *6 @+ + * > — oe ; ° we, i a ‘ w- ee
‘ 4s6 ‘ a r 4 he reteie ‘three
. 2©O+¢ 649 + + t‘«- ’ ¥ 6 oe.° + bem be °
e e- . ee. 7s . * - i at y a
* 2 «2+ 9 ° . ee r e- , Pte! * evi re
» @«6 +4 ** 7) . + eee . ‘ ‘ 4) Po Sere
o : _ * ' re be .
° and S % fp a hy . oe >. Ne te Ae wet kA
date é p ‘ “es 4 *a we’ ee w® bate Atay re
ee. ' SR eden id venyty Wiy!s a Ore ag ee
e. . ' : ° “i « : eo» +e.0 2 et tl Open
. <a . . . a. ‘% ‘ons A
‘ ee ; . e ‘re ° 4 ‘
— ‘é« o- . . . . ? ee ;
- ’ see e- : .
. . é ms
a > at * 4
- 7 - toes .
*. . ‘ “+ Rhos
: ‘ fods < “ . = oo. AAs
see ' * - : . oT et bee
“or ° +*o, —
ee 4 * av
. . * - « »e *se@%e
, - _ k oa ’ ? A," LOS NOE, ReweUe 08
7 . _ - .r TT toc wing bow ‘ ‘Heer ewree
: ose -t ~* pee . . é+s + * ~~ mare Ait ~O.* 1h) =< 4 ee Heerate
+ , . * . . Sete « . : a Weed
— . -
. ¢
° - . e- . ©
- * se ‘ry ‘
, .
: a te
* 2s - = . _
o * +* ews an .
A o- 4+ +#@* be
; . _* rere w
° OOo -Rtw-s ade Fa aA W000 dre don,
° - one *r fae > : Py SO bee
- e 46 +e ‘a "8 Fe.«' @-»
- 6 ,* * ‘te 60 .4+«) 66
- “rvee - 1 86 See e01+66
: el te ee. o
. - A, * -
° . ‘es : : ‘ ‘>
‘ ’ @e~ 4 ee oene ’ : ‘ o bee
e ° . . ol SHO ee +e~ ed . 7 we & ' y .
> : . ‘se . * 6s 6 o «@ ‘ e
my . : 7 +o « _ aad tr ‘ ~““e ee ‘ ‘ ties
‘ : + * ~ =m eee o's 6 "eis ’ Corn
- 1OOe ee eee . ~_ Sky = : “Fr . b
+ we eR 0 #OGeuase ee S» * * FPR "2 ree Pd es
eer a a “* ose : * re é ‘ - : vote rw “Rhee es
9 * . =) + - -@- fee »r ' oak ‘ 1 : . : ' ; .
ee @4 ° ee ‘Vere e+ ‘ ’ : t e “? L ’ ‘ :
> . : ’ * . gaser A a ° ’ : ’ ° ' ;
°*' @ *, - cere “~ ® . : “a
. - eve a : .
- *
. ; . - . ’
» *
*
‘ A@-
- . “ Hm be . - e. b/
: * * -
fete &* :
a ; rrr Serer Same,
Je ae
‘ewe
° " @¢€ 4+@8e808
- A , 2 . ~~ .
SPEER Re wereen seen
a —
~ w*etat o *s* ‘< * *,*ae a> "e' re oe eel et . : 7 - ‘ « >
-4 rane etbiator decd te $ brs Shed Hetty 5 oh ph eds oe errr. ’ : % . ’ 4 bcecetese Se SS ’ +o DESTESi ee rpeteeeter. ce! tele
Eu = “3 ~ st acs as 4 - r Ve gts? a" Satets’« valet eleteta'ts «'** oe ete "sTele eee | ef
, : : biel ete iw e . 7. re "
i) On a-yts%s?
A
:
RTE arene w= Hm e909) TURIN UE RE EMELINE COREA IY RNG PO ELEM FORINT ON eet TeeWt hy yw ATR nt REESE STRELA RA Se A A PR RS aR eh lowest myn nth eee pe rt a mm tte ol tid etinaehind adapeei din teibeed th dewhgnnsten tay Atieh CPEEOTS FPUT GEREN SRA SOR R Lge etme w
3 ‘ » y o aD .8 abfid dade pees Fs be ' , ook + © poker b badd pomgeis Shs 4g " se ¢ ques +t ay" f
; BAS Seanad: cals Sealer e Meas a tosh ae ke Mega re PHM RDS ahs whee i ~i Stow twnglatin a’ §
Mal
|
Digitized by Google ;
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
I
1926
Digitized by Google
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
VouLuME I, 1926-.: Steer |
EDITORIAL BOARD
Epwarp KENNARD Ranp
Eprror-In-CHIEF
Francis Peaspopy Maaovon, JR JOHN NicHo.tas Brown
Manaaine EpItor PuBLISHING EpDIToR
WILuiAM WITHERLE LAWRENCE JAMES HuacH Ryan
CHARLES Rurus Morey ErnNEstT Hatco WILKINS
Louis JOHN PaETow Kari YouNG
ADVISORY BOARD
GreorGE La PIANA
Paiie SCHUYLER ALLEN
Harry Moraan AyREs JOHN Matruews MANLY
CHARLES HENRY BEESON Dana CARLTON Munro
GEORGE RALEIGH COFFMAN WILLIAM ALBERT NITZE
CoRNELIA CATLIN COULTER ARTHUR KINGSLEY PORTER
Rate ApAaMsS Cram Frep Norris RoBINsON
Gorpon Hatt GEROULD JOHN STRONG PERRY TATLOCK
GEORGE LIVINGSTONE HAMILTON JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
CuHarLes Homer HAskKINs LYNN THORNDIKE
JAMES FIELD WILLARD
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
LEHMAN HALL
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
‘SprtuLum, A JouRNAL or Mep1AEvAL Srupes, is published quarterly
by the MepraEvaL AcapEMy or AMeERicA. The issues appear in
January, April, July, and October. The annual subscription price
is Five Dollars; single copies may be had post-free for One Dollar
and Fifty Cents. Members of the Acapemy receive SPECULUM post-
free. In case of accidental omission in the delivery of SpEcuLUM,
Members are requested to communicate forthwith in writing with
the Publishing Editor. MSS submitted for publication should be
forwarded to the Managing Editor, but MSS will not be returned
unless accompanied by a stamped and self-addressed envelope. For
the details of editorial practice Contributors are directed to “‘ Notes
for Contributors” at the end of each number. The Editors cannot
assume responsibility for the loss of MSS in the mails.
Copyright, 1926, by the Mediaeval Academy of America.
Entered as second-class matter, May 8, 1926, at the Post Office,
Boston, Mass., under the Act of August 24, 1912.
Printed by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
CONTENTS
RECORDS OF THE ACADEMY
Historical Background and Prospect. (G. R. Coffman). ........ 5
Report on the First Annual Meeting. (R.A.Cram) .......2... 451
Presidential Address: Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity.
CB Ko Hand). ok sie utes te Se Re He LE ek ae ee eS 258
Announcement of the First Election of Fellows... .......... 251
ARTICLES AND NOTES
H. M. Ayres, A Note on the School Pronunciation of Latin in England. . 440
C. H. Breson, The Vocabulary of the Annales Fuldenses. . . ...... 81
A. Biounrt, see *‘An Indez of Abbreviations,” etc.
G. R. Corrman, The Mediaeval Academy of America: Historical Background
nd. ProspeCt i 6 oes hn dk. WOE Be ree Se, OE ee ee Re EO 5
A. S. Coox, Augustine’s Journey from Rome to Richborough. .... . . 875
C. C. Coutter and F. P. Macovun, Jr, Giraldus Cambrensis and Indo-
Germanic Philology ..............2. 0.808502 eee 104
X J. Dickryson, The Mediaeval Conception of Kingship as developed in the
Policraticus of John of Salisbury .........2.2.2..2.2.22428-.4 808
A. M. FriEnp, Jr, Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis. . . .... 59
H. S. Genman, The Arabic Bible in Spain... .........2... 219
G. H. Gerovu.p, *“Tables’ in Mediaeval Churches... ......... 439
A. Griscom, The Date of Composition of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia . 129
’ J. H. Hanrorp, The Progenitors of Golias . . . .........00.. 88
. C. H. Hasxins, The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages. ........ 19
——,A Further Note ona Note .........2.2.2.2...08484 221
An Indez of Abbreviations in Miss Alma Blount’s Unpublished Onomasticon
Arthurianum «1 ww ww 190
F. P. Macoun, Jr, The Compilation of St Albans and the Old-French Alex-
ander Romance ............. 00 eee ee ee ees 225
F. P. Macoun, Jr, and C. C. Counter, see C. C. Coulter.
“ M. B. Oats, Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style .......... 170
W. A. O_praruer, An Angular Form of a Rare Abbreviation for-S... . 448
Onomasticon Arthurianum, see ‘“‘An Index of Abbreviations,” etc.
L. J. Paztow. Exposition du Moyen Age ............-.- Q17 |
E. K. Rawp, Editor’s Preface. . 2. 2 2... ke 8
——, Chaucerin Error... . 1... we ee ee 222
, Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity .......... 253
E2Z3279
Contents
E. K. Rann, An Uncial Fragment of the Letters of the Younger Pliny. . . . 348
—, A Manuscript of Tours, No. 286 .............0.4. 344
—, loannes Saresberiensis Sillabizat . . . . . 1... 1. ee ee 447
J. R. Remuarp, The Literary Background of the Chantefable. . . . . .. 157
D. V. THompson, Jr, Liber de Coloribus Illuminatorum siue Pictorum from
Sloane MS. No. 1754... 1 1 1 we ee ee 280
——, Inber de Coloribus: Addenda and Corrigenda. .......... 448
~} J. W. Tompson, The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths. Was it Written
inthe Ninth Century? ........... 2... 20 8 ee eae 410
L. THornpIKE, Public Readings of New Works in Mediaeval Universities . 101
—-, A Note ona Notetoa Note .......2.2...2.22.2020.224 103
——, Relations of the Inquisition to Peter of Abano and Cecco d’Ascoli . 338
——, Yet Another Note in Reply to a Further Note ona Note. ... . 445
H. H. Trornton, The Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “‘ Rex Fredericus” 87
+ —, The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio ........2.2.2.22.2.2. 898
E. H. Wauuer, A Welsh Branch of the Arthur Family-Tree. . ...... 344
J. F. Wruiarp, Inland Transportation in England during the Fourteenth
Century: 45-6. ee) a 5 Nea ke eS SB EE i by Sicls ares eo 861
A. Witmart, Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére .........2.2.2.2.. 269
——., Errata in “‘Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére” .......2.2.2.. 450
K. Youna, The Home of the Easter Play ...........2.2.0.. 71
REVIEWS
Archiuum Latinitatis Medii Aeui, see Bulletin DuCange, etc.
S. BaTeMAN, Simon de Montfort, His Life and Work. (J. F. Willard)... . $51
H. BEEnKEN, Romanische Skulptur in Deutschland, 11. und 12. Jahrhundert.
(A. Kingsley Porter) « 3.06 20m: a & Bed ew Sw Ee ee Be Se eR 233
+ C.H. Beeson, A Primer of Medieval Latin. (C.U. Clark)... 2... . 110
M. Biocu, La Vie d’outre-tombe du Roi Salomon. (G. H. Gerould). . .. . 243
Bulletin DuCange: Archiwum Latinitatis Medi Aeut. (Sister A. Margaret) . 119
Byzantion, tome I. (R. P. Blake) ...... 2... 2... 244
Calendar of the Fine Rolls, Vols VI, VII, VIII. (J. F. Willard)... . . . 115
' C. U. Cuarxk and J. B. Game, Medieval and Late Latin Selections. (C. H.
PPCOSON) 2. "n. as es Be os ee ah ds “Be RR ee Eke eee ea 118
A. S. Cook and C. B. Trnxer, Select Translations from Old English Poetry.
(F..P: Magoun, dr) ec oe ee OR OS Bee we he A wes 460
P. Dittricu and O. Stance, Vor Latina IIT: Ausgewiihlte Proben lateinischen
Schriftums von 200 n. Chr. bis zur Gegenwart. (C. U. Clark) . 2... . . 110
Essays in Mediaeval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout. (C. HI.
Maskiis): 2 eis tS: BS se oe eo ee BS we eG SAX GS S 118
J. B. Game and C. U. Cuark, see C. U. Clark
S. GASELEE, An Anthology of Medieval Latin. (C. U. Clark)... 2... . 110
Contents
E. Gitson, La Philosophie au Moyen Age. (J. H. Ryan). .....2.2..
——, Saint Thomas D’Aquin. (J.H. Ryan) ........2.2.22.2..
A. Griscom, The ‘‘ Book of Basingwerk” and MS. Cotton Cleopatra B. V.:
A Study of Early Welsh Manuscripts. (J.S. P. Tatlock) .......
K. P. Harrincton, Mediaeval Latin. (C.U. Clark)... .....2.2..
P. T. Horrman, Der mittelalterliche Mensch. (K. Francke) ........
F. Lot, see Mélanges d’histoire du moyen dge, etc.
Mélanges d histoire du moyen dge offerts d M. Ferdinand Lot par ses amis et
ses éleves. (C. H. Haskins) : ............02.20.22020204%
H. P. V. Nunn, An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin. (C.U. Clark). . . .
F. Oxicati, J.S. ZYBuRA, tr., The Key to the Study of St Thomas. (J. H. Ryan)
J.J. Parry, The Vita Merlint. (J.S.P. Tatlock). . ......202024.,
J. H. Pitman, The Riddles of Aldhelm: Text and Translation. (F.P. Magoun,
Ds 4-8, Se G, Gras ee Ge Ee Be Wath da. de a ee
R. L. Poor, Chronicles and Annals: A Brief Outline of their Origin and
Growth. (C.H. Haskins) ...........2..02.2020282084
J. R. REINHARD, Amadas et Ydoine, roman du riit* siécle. (F. P. Magoun, Jr)
W. W. Rockwe ., Liber Miraculorum Ninivensium Sancti Cornelii Papae.
(GH. Gerould): ule Sa Moe eRe Hak & Mi Se BEE AES
R. K. Root, The Book of Troilus and Criseyde by Geoffrey Chaucer. (Announce-
WGN). 25 4G. th es anak Se Se 8 Ee ee a Sk
, Che Book of Troilus and Criseyde by Geoffrey Chaucer. (F. N. Robin-
BOW)! fo 67 ig Ge eect bed, Uetdg @ Me-Ss Be Se wk ee ee Be ae ee
E. H. Seuwrt, Vollstandiges Worterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsdchischen
Genesis. (T. Starck) . 2... 2... 2. ee
O. StanGE and P. Ditrricu, see P. Dittrich.
C. B. Tinker and A. S. Cook, see A. S. Cook.
T. F. Tout, see Essays in Mediaeval History, etc.
M. de Wutr, Histoire de la Philosophie Mediévale, 5th rev. ed. (Mnnolnee:
PNCHU)s coh af Roe Sn se es we a Oe es ee SS ee
M. de Wutr, E. C. MEssinc_Enr, tr., History of Mediaeval Philosophy, Vol. I.
(eS INV ONS see ace Ge ewe Hide dh O'S ee eS HS ta Fo es, Ge
J. S. Zysura, ed., Present-Day Thinkers and the New Scholasticism.
(Uo. Ryan): 078.46 ie a vn a SR BA eo eS Ee
Digitized by Google
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
»
*
JANUARY, 1926 “=<
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
_ THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
ANy person desirous of becoming a Member of the MepIAEVAL ACADEMY
or AMERICA ds requested 46 gommunicate with one of the Officers or with
a Membet; «Candidates: are.*elected when nominated by a Member and
approved by an.Officer.of.the Academy. Active Membership, Five Dollars
per angum: “Bodides Aétive-Menibership, the following classes of Member-
ship are Open to all who may wish to make further contributions to. the
support and endowment of the Academy: Contributing Membership, Ten
Dollars per annum; Life Membership, One Hundred Dollars; Sustaining
Membership, Five Hundred Dollars. A Sustaining Member who sub-
- scribes at one time One Thousand Dollars shall be known as a Benefactor; __
Ten Thousand Dollars, as a Patron; and Fifty Thousand Dollars within
Two Years of the Date of Incorporation (December 23, 1925), as a Foun-
_ der. See By-Laws, §§11-14. . | ,
OFFICERS OF .THE ACADEMY | ead
President
Epwarp KENNARD Ranp
Harvard University ve :
First Vice-President Second Vice-President _ Third Vice-President
Joun Martraews Manuy Cuarues Homer Haskins James Fretp WILLARD
University of Chicago Harvard University | University of Colorado
| Treasurer 3 Clerk
Joun Nicgoias Brown Rauteu Apams Cram
Providence: . Boston
. Counc - |
Prruipe SCHUYLER ALLEN Caar_es Henry Breson GrorGcE Raueien CorrmMan
_ University:of Chicago University of Chicago Boston University
Gorpon Haut GEROULD ‘Louis Joun Parrow Gerorce ArTHuR Puimpron
Princeton University University of California New York City
. Arraur Kinesiey PorteR 9 Wriitiam WaLKER RockwELL James HucH Ryan
Harvard University Union Theological Seminary : Catholic University of America
Joun Strone Perry Tattock James WestraLL THomPson Kari Youne | |
Harvard University University of Chicago . Yale University
The purpose of the MeprarvaL AcapEeMy or AMERica is “to conduct,
encourage, promote and support research, publication, and instruction in
mediaeval records, literature, languages, arts, archaeology, history, philo-
sophy, science, life, and all other aspects of mediaeval civilization. . . .”
(See By-Laws, p. 1). | |
Subscriptions, effective from January Ist of the current calendar-year,
should be paid to the MepiaEvaL AcApEMy OF AMERICA, 248 Boylston
Street, Room 312, Boston, Mass. Any Member wishing to withdraw must
signify his intention tn writing previously to January Ist of the ensuing
year; otherwise he will be considered liable to pay his subscription for that
ear. |
It is particularly requested that speedy intimation of any change of
residence, or errors in addresses, be notified to the Clerk of the Acaprmy,
248 Boylston Street, Room 312, Boston, Mass. :
A copy of the By-Laws of the Academy will be sent post-free to each
Member upon election. Additional copies may be had from the Treasurer
at Fifty Cents each.
SpecuLum, A JouRNAL OF MEprAEvaL StupiEs, is delivered post-free to
Members not in arrear of the Annual Subscription and to Life Members
and to the various classes of Contributing Members.
ee Se
os wwe e 2@
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
CONTENTS
ARTICLES
EDITOR’S PREFACE ............00 002 sees
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA: HISTORICAL BACK-
GROUND AND PROSPECT .............. G. R. Corrman 5
THE SPREAD OF IDEAS IN THE MIDDLE AGES. ... C.H.Haszems 19
THE VOCABULARY OF THE ANNALES FULDENSES.. C.H. Berson $1
THE PROGENITORS OF GOLIAS............. J.H.Hanrorp 38
TWO MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SCHOOL OF ST DENIS... A.M.Frienp’= 59
THE HOME OF THE EASTER PLAY. ............ K. Youne 7]
THE POEMS ASCRIBED TO FREDERICK II AND “REX
FREDERICUS”
sesh SSP Zap Sa. Mercy rie? tes Tae dei Sony 2d, 2 Lt SA ees L. THORNDIKE
A NOTE ON A NOTE TO A NOTE............ L. THornpike 103
GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS AND INDO-GERMANIC
Eo ee ane Bea ak . C.C. CouLter and F. P. Maacovun, Jr.
A Handful of Helps to the Study of Mediaeval Latin (C. U. Clark and C. H.
Beeson); P. Th. Hoffmann, Der Mittelalterliche Mensch (K. Francke); Calendar
of the Fine Rolls, Vols. VI, VII, and VIII (J. F. Willard); E. Gilson, La Philoso-
phie au Moyen Age and Saint Thomas D’ Aquin (J. F. Ryan); Essays in Mediaeval
History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout (C. H. Haskins); Bulletin DuCange:
Archiuum Latinitatis Medii Aeui (Sister A. Margaret); M. De Wulf, Histoire de la
Philosophie Mediévale, 5th rev. ed. (Announcement).
NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
VOLUME I JANUARY, 1926 NUMBER 1
‘
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
SPECULUM, A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
e*. Epiror-1n-Caler
; Zpwarp Kennarp Ranp
407 Lake View Ave., Cambridge, Mass.
Manaainea Eprror PuBLisHine Epitor
Francis Peasopy Maaovun, JR. JOHN NICHOLAS BROWN
45 Winthrop St., Cambridge, Mass. 50 South Main St., Providence, R.I.
WituiaM WITHERLE LAWRENCE JaMES Hucu Ryan
Columbia University Catholic University of America
CHarLes Rurus Morey ERNEST Hatco WILKINS
Princeton University University of Chicago
Louis JoHN PAETOW Kari Youne
University of California Yale University
ADVISORY BOARD
Pamip ScHUYLER ALLEN GEORGE La PIANA
University of Chicago Harvard University
Harry Morcan AYRES JOHN MatrHews MANLY
Columbia University University of Chicago
CHARLES HENRY BEESON Dana CaRLTON Munro
University of Chicago Princeton University
GEORGE RaLEIGH COFFMAN WILLIAM ALBERT NITZE
Boston University University of Chicago
CoRNELIA CATLIN COULTER ArTHUR KINGSLEY PoRTER
Vassar College Harvard University
Rate ApAMsS CRAM Frep Norris Rosrnson
Boston, Massachusetts Harvard University
Gorpon Hauut GEROULD JOHN StroNG Perry TaTLock
Princeton University Harvard University
GEORGE LIVINGSTONE HAMILTON JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
Cornell University University of Chicago
CuHarLes Homer HASKINS Lynn THORNDIKE
Harvard University Columbia University
JAMES FIELD WILLARD
University of Colorado
Specutum, A JouRNAL OF MEDIAEVAL StvpiEs, is published quarterly by the MEDIAEVAL
AcaDEMY oF AMERICA. The issues appear in January, April, July, and October. The sub-
scription price is Five Dollars; single copies may be had post-free for One Dollar and Fifty
Cents. Members of the ACADEMY receive SPECULUM post-free. In case of accidental omission
in the delivery of SpEcutum, Members are requested to communicate forthwith in writing
with the Publishing Editor. MSS submitted for publication should be forwarded to the
Managing Editor, but MSS will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped and self-
addressed envelope. For the details of editorial practice Contributors are directed to ‘“‘ Notes
for Contributors”’ at the end of this number. The Editors cannot assume responsibility for the
loss of MSS in the mails.
Vor. I, No. 1. — Copyright, 1926, by the Mediaeval Academy of America. — Printep m U.S. A.
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
Ae
EDITOR’S PREFACE.
HE formation in America of a MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY is an en-
couraging sign of the times. The conception of the Middle
Ages as a period of dark ignorance, crude taste, and blind fanaticism
has few supporters left. It may safely be relegated to those outworn
superstitions once most effectively damned if branded as mediaeval.
It is more and more apparent that in letters and institutions, phi-
losophy and art, the Middle Ages present a chapter in the develop-
ment of civilization which the student of human progress can ill
afford to neglect. We may no longer bestow a civil leer on
the Classics of an age that heard of none.
Rather, we turn to Jean de Meun, Dante, and Chaucer for beauties
of form, heights of thought, and pleasant scenes from the comedy of
life that can challenge comparison, certainly, with anything in the
time of Pope. The Mrprarvat AcApDEmy will, we hope, become a
rallying point for the cultivation and study of these Middle Ages.
The history of the movement that has led to the establishment of
the AcapEmy is presented in the following pages by Professor Coff-
man, who has been, from the start, the life of the undertaking. The
AcapDEMy embodies no visionary scheme of a few enthusiasts. It is
the natural flower of an irresistible growth. ‘An interest in Mediaeval
Latin is the bond that has united the members of this society from its
inception; it is the bond that next to the Church, or, rather, as part
and parcel of the Church, united the mediaeval communities them-
selves.) But while Mediaeval Latin is still the centre of our interests,
it is not the circumference. The new AcaprEmy would include in its
scope the entire civilization of the Middle Ages. It welcomes to
8
C
co
eee”
¢
4 Editor's Preface
membership any citizens of our country or other countries who
cherish a lively and intelligent interest in mediaeval culture and its
significance for our times.
The ideals of the AcapEmy will be illustrated, we hope, in our
journal, SPECULUM. IThe term Middle Ages we take in a widely
comprehensive $6nsé- ‘On what lies outside, SPEcULUM cannot well
be. forwseed;-its range is large enough as it is. But any aspect of an
dutlying’ period that bears significantly on the Middle Ages may
appropriately be discussed in this journal. Just how many centuries
are included in the Middle Ages everybody knows but no two can
define in the same way. Following the example of St Augustine
when confronted by a theological problem of some moment, we
would answer, “‘If you ask us not, we know; if you ask us, we know
not.” Contributors need not consider dates and border-lines, if
the point of their discourse is directed at what everybody would
agree is Mediaeval. Specutum, this mirror to which we find it
appropriate to give a Latin name, suggests the multitudinous mirrors
in which the people of the Middle Ages liked to gaze at themselves
and other folk — mirrors of history and doctrine and morals, mirrors
of princes and lovers and fools. We intend no conscious follies, but
we recognize satire, humor, and the Joy of life as part of our aim. Art
and beauty and poetry are a portion of our mediaeval heritage. Our
contribution to the knowledge of those times must be scholarly, first
of all, but scholarship must be arrayed, so far as possible, in a pleasing
form. No subject is common or unclean merely because it deals with
small details; but details must tend towards a significant goal. It is
no less our purpose to avoid vain repetition, the popularization of
matters well-known. We aim at what is new, in fact or statement or
interpretation. Propaganda, in the recent and repellent sense of the
word, is excluded from our programme. Our pages are open to con-
tributors of all shades of belief or point of view. They may regard the
Ages of Faith with adoration or with contempt, if only they will tell
us something about them. It is thus our hope that from many angles,
new glimpses of history and philosophy, letters and art will find re-
flection in this mirror of mediaeval life. }
E. K. R.
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA: HIS-
TORICAL BACKGROUND AND PROSPECT
GEORGE R. COFFMAN
HE purpose of this article is to record briefly the history of a
movement which has resulted in the incorporation on Decem-
ber 23, 1925, of the MEeprAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA, and to
suggest something of the possibilities of this organization for the
future. That such an article should appear in the first number of
SPECULUM is altogether fitting; for this journal is to be the official
organ of the Academy. )
The initial impulse to this movement was the presidential ad-
dress delivered by Professor John M. Manly before the Modern
Language Association of America in December, 1920.! Since his
analysis of the situation then existing in modern languages applied
equally to the whole field of mediaeval studies in this country, and
since his recommendations for a comprehensive and constructive pro-
gramme point the way to a new era in American humanistic scholar-
ship, I indicate something of the content of his address. After com-
mending the Association for its fine record of achievement during
its thirty-seven years of existence, Professor Manly emphasized the
lack of organized codperative activity in that body:
ti the field of research we see that everything has been left to the indi-
vidual members. Not only has there been no attempt to direct the investi-
gations, there has been equally no attempt to bring together,in any special
way or for any special purposeymembers who are working on subjects closely
related or capable of being made of mutual service. . . . No great author or
period has been fully studied; no great text or body of related texts has been
edited; no problem of literary history or criticism has been made the object
of concentrated and consistent study. .. . The general impression produced
by a survey of our work is that it has been individual, casual, scrappy, and
scattering. . . . if we needed financial support for some important under-
taking and were asked to justify our appeal by reference to what we have
done, we could not point to large, unified achievements.” 7
1 “New Bottles, The President’s Address,” Publications of the Modern Language Associa-
tion, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1, March, 1921, pp. xlvi-lx of Proceedings for 1920.
2 Ibid., pp. xlvii-lviii.
6 Historical Background and Prospect
Following this indictment, he suggested some important problems to
be undertaken, and, after voicing the conviction that the necessary
money for such tasks would be available if the cause was intelli-
gently presented, he recommended that a programme be drawn up
“‘for reorganization of the meetings with a view to greater specializa-
tion and greater stimulation of research; and the working out
through carefully chosen committees of plans for important investi-
gations and of methods of aiding individual investigators.”
“As a result of this recommendation one of the groups organized
during 1921 chose as its subject “‘The Influence of Latin Culture on
Mediaeval Literature,”’ or, as it was later expressed, “‘ Mediaeval
Latin Studies.”” This original group was the nucleus of the present
MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA. |
At the meeting of the Modern Language Association in Baltimore
in December of the same year, this was constituted a permanent
group or section. Its first session consisted of an animated com-
mittee-meeting at which the eighteen or twenty present carried on
informal discussion, occasionally directing their remarks to the
chairman when they had crystallized some suggestion. In the per-
sonnel of the group, in the trend of the discussion, and in the agenda
of activities outlined for the following year, there was already a
suggestion of a Mediaeval Academy of America. There were
representatives — geographically well-distributed — from all de-
partments of modern-language study in the leading American
universities, as well as individuals from outside the academic circle,
known to the public through their literary activities in modern fields.
In response to an invitation of the chairman, Professor Rand had
sent for discussion a comprehensive syllabus of suggested studies.
This syllabus, along with numerous other suggestions which have
been coming in for the past four years from the United States and
abroad, may well form the basis for a programme of constructive
studies to be considered by the AcapEmy. As to immediate proce-
dure, all of those present recognized that, because of the vast scope of
territory included in the subject assigned and because of the multi-
tude of tasks to be undertaken, it was obviously impossible to make
comprehensive assignments covering the whole field. So it was
Historical Background and Prospect 7
agreed that a programme of work should be drawn up which would
develop codperation on the part of persons interested in Mediaeval-
Latin literature. The following proposals were discussed:
1. To secure as complete a list as possible of scholars working in this field
and, wherever possible, a statement of the tasks in which they are en-
2. To put workers in closely related projects into communication with
one another.
3. To secure data as to what the colleges and the universities are doing in
the field of Mediaeval Latin Studies.
4. Tostudy possibilities for wider codperation (i) with scholars in classics,
history, philosophy, and related subjects or fields; (ii) with organiza-
tions and institutions, such as the Benedictine Order. It was suggested
that in this group might be the beginnings of an Academy of Medi-
aeval Latin Culture.
5. To connect this group with scholars in the mediaeval field in England
and on the Continent.
6. To concentrate upon a few concrete projects of general interest in this
field, such as encouraging the introduction of specific courses in Medi-
aeval Latin in the graduate schools of the country.!
A further indication that, in their inception, the aims of the group
reached beyond the Modern Language Association is found in the
following excerpt from a letter from the present writer, chairman of
the group, to Professor Manly, general chairman of all of the Modern
Language groups, written two weeks after the meeting in Baltimore:
I have in mind an advisory council consisting of such men as Professors
Rand, Haskins, Tatlock, Allen, Grandgent, Paetow, Mr Carl Van Doren,
and others representing the various fields and academic departments of
Latin cultural interests. Such a council might possibly develop into an Acad-
emy of Medzaeval-Latin Culture with a definite program.
And a paragraph from a letter by Professor Rand, written a little
later, indicates that he, too, from the first heartily approved of this
suggestion :
1 See Publications of the Modern Language Association, Vol. XXXVIF, March, 1922; Pro-
ceedings for 1921, pp. xlvi-xlix. The interested reader will find here also Professor Rand’s
syllabus.
8 Historical Background and Prospect
The idea which you suggest of an Academy of Mediaeval Culture is
certainly a splendid goal to look forward to. I can even imagine in the
future that with the help of my friend, Ralph Adams Cram, the Academy
will be locally situated in a Gothic monastery.
In these beginnings, then, and in all of the activities of this group
and, later, of the committee of the American Council of Learned So-
cieties up to the present, the interest has been centred primarily in
Mediaeval Latin literature and in the varied aspects of Mediaeval
Latinity. With this fact in mind the reader will readily understand
why the group in the Modern Language Association turned at once
to Professors Rand and Beeson. Obviously the first steps in any
programme were to effect a simple organization, to discover the pre-
cise situation with regard to Mediaeval Latin in American educa-
tional institutions, and to encourage the introduction of specific
courses in this subject in the graduate schools.
The first step taken to achieve these ends consisted in a conference
between the chairman of the group and Professor Beeson, held in
Chicago about two days after the session in Baltimore. The problem
of an introductory course in Mediaeval Latin was the subject for
discussion. Though at the present time there are several anthologies
which might be used for such a course, no satisfactory text was
then available. Professor Beeson finally expressed himself as willing
to prepare an anthology for this purpose, provided he could be
assured a publisher. A syllabus of the proposed selections, which he
made during the following months, formed the basis for discussion in
December, 1922, not only in the Modern Language Association but
also in sections in the American Philological and Historical Associ-
ations. Professor Beeson’s book appeared a few months ago.!
During the spring of 1922 the organization of the committee in
the Modern Language Association was completed. From the begin-
ning two elements were kept in mind: that it must be national rather
than sectional in character; and that it must enlist the services of
the best Mediaeval Latinists from whatever department of study or
from whatever learned society. In the first place, then, the country
was divided geographically, with Professors Gerould and Tatlock as
1 Cf. review, “A Handful of Helps to the Study of Mediaeval Latin,” pp. 110 ff., infra.
Historical Background and Prospect 9
chairmen for the East and for the Pacific Coast respectively; the
present writer was appointed chairman for the Middle West and
executive secretary of the group. In the second place, Professor
Rand was persuaded to accept the general or advisory chairmanship.
As a result of this organization, a uniform programme was presented
in December, 1922, at meetings of the American Philological Associ-
ation, the Modern Language Association, and the Pacific Coast
Philological Association. As announced in a bulletin issued during
the summer of 1922, the main purpose of this organization was “‘to
synthesize in a constructive programme the efforts of all individuals
or groups from classics, history, modern languages, philosophy, and
related fields who are interested in the Latin cultural aspects of the
Middle Ages.”
The first definite project of the committee indicated above was a
survey of the condition of Mediaeval-Latin studies in the graduate
schools of this country. A subcommittee consisting of Professors
Tatlock, Cross, and Brooke analyzed the data collected and prepared
specific recommendations. Through the courtesy of the editors of
that magazine, their report appeared in Modern Philology, XXI
(1924), 309-315. The last two pages are packed with valuable sug-
gestions and recommendations which deserve careful consideration,
at the proper time, by the Council of the MrpiarvaL ACADEMY OF
America. During this same year the secretary began to compile a
mailing-list of those interested in the purposes of this group. This
list now includes between five and six hundred names from all over
the world. Indicative of the widespread interest in the various
activities are letters received by the secretary from all parts of the
United States, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany,
Great Britain and Ireland, Holland, and the Scandinavian coun-
tries; also from a considerable number of business and professional
people outside of the academic life.
After the meetings in December, 1922, it became evident that the
interest had grown far beyond the organization with which it was
then affiliated, and that some kind of reorganization which would
give Mediaeval Latinists from .the classics, history, and philosophy
a place of equality with those from modern languages was necessary.
-_
10 Historical Background and Prospect
Two possibilities for such reorganization were considered by the
committee: (1) the formation of an independent organization to be
known as a society or academy for mediaeval studies; or (2) affili-
ation with some organization already in existence. At first the com-
mittee favored the former of these possibilities, but after corre-
spondence and conference with Professor Haskins, chairman of the
American Council of Learned Societies, Professor Rand, the general
chairman, and the secretary, with the approval of the other two
members, completed arrangements for the appointment of a com-
mittee on Mediaeval Latin Studies as a standing committee of the
American Council of Learned Societies. The original committee as
appointed by Professor Haskins consisted of Professors E. K. Rand
(chairman), C. H. Beeson, M. De Wulf, G. H. Gerould, L. J. Paetow,
J. S. P. Tatlock, J. W. Thompson, J. F. Willard, and the present
writer as executive secretary. Since that time Professor H. M.
Ayres and Mr John Nicholas Brown have been added to the com-
mittee.
During the year 1923 also, several other projects were proposed
or initiated:
1. Inresponse to urgent requests, Professor Paetow began a book, not yet
completed, entitled The Revival of Interest in Mediaeval Latin with the
following tentative table of contents: chapter i, “Latin in the Middle
Ages”; chapter ii, “‘The Humanists and Mediaeval Latin,”; chapter
ili, ““ Mediaeval Latin in the Modern Times”’; chapter iv, “Latin as an
International Auxiliary Language”; chapter v, ‘The Revival of In-
terest in Mediaeval Latin in the Twentieth Century.” Each chapter is
to include a critical bibliography.
2. In connection with the American Council of Learned Societies, the
committee interested itself in the international project for a new Medi-
aeval-Latin dictionary. Professor Beeson, chairman of a special com-
mittee of the Council for this project, and American representative on
the international committee, had attended the Union Académique
Internationale in Brussels in April, 1922. The Union Académique
Internationale, it may be explained here, is now committed to a
Mediaeval-Latin lexicon to come down to about the year 1000. The
organization is completed, the work distributed, and Paris is the centre,
with Professor Goelzer of the Sorbonne as director.
Historical Background and Prospect 11
3. Through Professor Gerould, in codperation with the American Library
Association, the committee proposed a plan for codperative buying of
Mediaeval-Latin materials so as to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Professor Gerould suggested also a bibliography of Mediaeval-Latin
materials in the libraries of this country. These are projects for the
Academy to consider.
4. At the meeting of the British and American Professors of English at
Columbia University in June, 1923, the active codperation of the Eng-
lish scholars was enlisted. Dr G. G. Coulton of St Johns College,
Cambridge University, agreed to sponsor the project in England. In
the Literary Supplement of the London Times for November 1, 1923,
appears a letter by him outlining the plans of the Committee and re-
questing the names of those interested. As a result of this announce-
ment, between fifty and one hundred English scholars have written to
Dr Coulton or to the secretary indicating their interest in the move-
ment. The closing sentence of Dr Coulton’s letter is significant as in-
cluding a phrase which expresses one of the principal aims of the Acad-
emy: “To those who have felt the need of what the Provost of Eton
once called, ‘a clearing-house of mediaeval studies,’ the energy of these
American professors promises very effectual help.”” May our American
Academy not be forgetful of its international opportunities!
5. The committee considered ways and means of publishing a journal de-
voted to mediaeval studies. It recommended that the publication con-
tain, in addition to reports, special studies, reviews, and comprehensive
bibliographies. And it suggested also a project for publishing in uni-
form edition translations of Mediaeval-Latin classics.
6. In November, 1923, the secretary prepared and mailed to almost four
hundred persons interested in some aspect of Mediaeval-Latin studies a
bulletin explanatory of the work of the committee.
In the meantime, while the Committee was getting its programme
under way, Professor J. F. Willard, working independently, was pre-
paring an annual bulletin on the progress of mediaeval studies in the
United States. Through the courtesy of the University of Colorado,
with some financial assistance from the American Council of Learned
Societies this year, three numbers have already appeared.'! These
constitute a valuable and comprehensive source of information con-
cerning the status of mediaeval studies in this country. In accord-
ance with its general aims, the Committee for the past two years has
1 Progress of Mediaeval Studies in the United States of America, compiled by James F. Wil-
lard, Professor of History, University of Colorado (Boulder, Colorado, May, 1928, 1924, 1925).
12 Historical Background and Prospect
codperated with Professor Willard by helping him secure data for
this bulletin.
In addition to the “Report on the Status of Mediaeval-Latin
Studies” and Professor Willard’s bulletin mentioned above, the
prominent activities for the year 1924 were: the initiation by Pro-
fessor Beeson of work in this country on the Mediaeval Latin
dictionary; the recommendation of a committee to raise funds for a
journal of mediaeval studies; the establishment of closer connections
with the Continent; the preparation of a special bulletin by the
secretary; and a gift of three thousand dollars to be used toward a
journal of mediaeval studies. To discover what difficulties would
develop in connection with the Mediaeval Latin texts assigned to
America, Professor Beeson set to work under his supervision a group
of graduate students at the University of Chicago. During the
spring the secretary met Mr Jean Malye, general delegate of the
Association Guillaume Budé, an organization which through lectures,
bulletins, and a publishing house ‘‘is engaged in restoring French —
classical scholarship to its proper high position.” Mr Malye ex-
pressed a keen interest in our work and offered to give it publicity in
France through his bulletins. Several enthusiastic letters came to
the chairman from Germany, including one from Professor Paul
Lehmann, Traube’s successor at Munich; and Professor Maurice
De Wulf of the University of Louvain has been among the most en-
thusiastic supporters of our enterprise. During the holiday season of
this same year, special sessions in the Modern Language Association,
in the American Philological Association, and in the American Histor-
ica] Association were devoted to Mediaeval Latin. Professor Paetow
presented before Section L of the American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science plans for the proposed journal of mediaeval
studies and for the dictionary. During this same year Dr Francis P.
Magoun, Jr. accepted the chairmanship of a special committee for
Establishing an Annual Bibliography of Mediaeval Latinity. He
drew up a plan for procedure and had the initial stage of the work
well in hand when plans for SpecutuM and for the Academy delayed
further immediate activities.
Since the chairman and the secretary of the Committee were con-
Historical Background and Prospect 13
vinced that funds were an immediate and imperative need for the
realization of their programme, they centred their main efforts on
effecting an organization for this purpose. To consider this problem,
the secretary, with the approval of the chairman, issued a call for a
meeting of the Committee on Mediaeval Latin Studies in New York
on January 2d, 1925. They invited for a joint-meeting at that time
the special subcommittee on Founding a Journal of Mediaeval Stud-
ies, which had been appointed some months before by the American
Council of Learned Societies and of which Professor H. M. Ayres
was chairman. The important event of the meeting was a telegram
from Professor Rand, who was unable to be present, announcing that
Mr John Nicholas Brown had given three thousand dollars towards
establishing the journal, hoping but not stipulating that the two
committees would raise the additional three thousand then esti-
mated as needed for the first year. As a result of the discussion which
' followed, the leadership of the financial campaign was delegated to
Professor Ayres, and the goal for the necessary endowment of the
journal was set at one hundred thousand dollars. At this same
meeting it was voted as the sense of the Committee that ultimately an
Academy of Mediaeval Studies should be formed; Professor Rand
was nominated to the American Council of Learned Societies as
editor-in-chief of the mediaeval journal to be established; Mr Brown,
Dr Magoun, and the present writer were appointed a committee to
draw up with Professor Rand nominations for an editorial board to
be submitted to the Committee on Mediaeval Latin Studies.
As soon as the American Council of Learned Societies had ap-
proved the vote of the committee in nominating Professor Rand
editor-in-chief and had authorized the appointment of the editorial
board as indicated above, the committee specially appointed pro-
ceeded to draw up a list of nominations for the editorial and advisory
boards. With the approval of the Committee on Mediaeval Latin
Studies Professor Rand appointed the managing and the publishing
editors. After the editorial board had been approved by the Com-
mittee on Mediaeval Latin Studies, and an advisory board of eighteen
had been selected by the same committee from a list of twenty-nine
names submitted, Professor Haskins, as authorized by the American
14 Historical Background and Prospect
Council of Learned Societies at its January meeting, named the edito-
rial body as now officially constituted. As a result of the vote of the
Committee on Mediaeval Latin Studies, the title chosen for the new
magazine was SPECULUM, A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES.
We now come to the final stage of the activities leading to the
MenpraEvat AcADEMY oF America. On Friday afternoon, June 12,
1925, Mr John Nicholas Brown and Mr Ralph Adams Cram, in an
afternoon meeting with Professor Rand at the Colonial Club in
Cambridge, broached the idea of taking steps at once to found an
academy which would include within its scope, in addition to Medi-
aeval Latin, all aspects of mediaeval civilization. The proposal was
made the subject of discussion at a dinner at the Harvard Club in
Boston on Friday evening, June 19, at which were present Professor
Rand, Mr Brown, Mr Cram, Dr Magoun, and the present writer.
At this dinner were drafted certain considerations. The first of these
considerations represents a broadening of the aims drafted two years
earlier by the Committee on Mediaeval Latin Studies:
\ * Vn. An Academy is essential to accomplish the ultimate objectives of
.
the Committee on Mediaeval-Latin Studies: An understanding
of the records of the Middle Ages and their significance in human
history. This involves (1) Lists of Documents; (2) The edition
or other reproduction of Documents; (3) Dictionaries and other
linguistic helps; (4) Publications dealing with the whole field or
with parts thereof; (5) The study of the relation of Mediaeval
Latin to its Classical Background, to mediaeval vernacular liter-
ature, and to mediaeval and modern life and thought; (6) Provisions
for research in the fields of Mediaeval Institutions, Mediaeval
Art and Archaeology, Mediaeval Literature — various kinds of
subventions. J
VO. An academy will most successfully codrdinate various projects
already initiated or proposed in the mediaeval field. These
include:
1. SpecuLuM, A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
2. Dictionaries
8. Bibliographies | °
4. Publishing projects of various kinds.
Historical Background and Prospect 15
Ii. An academy will be a coordinating agency for all individuals
and groups interested in mediaeval culture.
IV. An academy is the logical next step for those interested in
mediaeval studies to take in order to become a codrdinate
organization in the American Council of Learned Societies. ,
Mr Brown and Mr Cram further pointed out that the proposal
for an academy in the near future was a timely step in connection
with Specutum, A JouRNAL oF MEDIAEVAL StupIEs, and other
projects temporarily suspended because of lack of funds. Finally,
it developed in the course of the dinner that pledges of six thousand
dollars could be secured at once to initiate a national campaign.
This proposal, with the accompanying considerations in support
thereof, the secretary submitted to the Committee on Mediaeval
Latin Studies in July. As a result of their approval of this proposal
and of further resolutions submitted in October, Mr Brown (chair-
man), Mr Cram, and Professor Haskins were appointed a subcom-
mittee on incorporation, and Mr Brown and Mr Cram accepted the
invitation of the Committee to assume the financial leadership in the
campaign for endowment.
It is well to pause here for a moment to summarize the more
notable achievements of the Committee on Mediaeval Latin Studies
during the past four years:
1. It has contributed its modest part toward the international
revival of interest in mediaeval studies.
2. It has paved the way for international codperation among
students of mediaeval literature.
3. It has helped to develop a sense of solidarity and common
purpose among individuals and organizations in America,
interested in any aspect of mediaeval life and thought.
4. It has formulated a comprehensive and constructive pro-
gramme of significance to all interested in the continuity of
civilization.
16 Historical Background and Prospect
5. Through the generous codperation of Mr Brown it has made
possible a publication devoted exclusively to matters medi-
aeval.
On the other hand, many of the projects enumerated above, as well
as other valuable proposals, still lie buried in the secretary’s files.
Some require further study and some require funds.
A capable and responsive committee, a large, interested group
outside, and the American Council of Learned Societies, which since
1923 has given financial assistance for clerical expenses, have made
possible these achievements of the past four years. At the moment
of writing the secretary recalls especially the contributions of Pro-
fessors Manly, Allen, Haskins, Beeson, Willard, and Rand. The first
of these goes down in our records as the critic and the seer. With
him stands Professor P. S. Allen, who in December, 1921, preceding
the meeting in Baltimore, first suggested the possibility of an acad-
emy and outlined a general plan of action which has proved most
useful. For the past three years Professor Haskins has been a
constant and helpful counsellor. The merits of Professor Beeson’s
Primer of Medieval Latin speak for themselves. Here the only word is
a tribute to him as the maker of a much needed text-book. In sucha
task there is little glory for the scholar; but for the making of this
book a genuine scholar was essential. Estimated in terms of time and
energy, his contribution to Mediaeval Latin studies has probably
been greater than that of any other individual. It is a pleasure also
to make special mention of Professor Willard’s work as compiler and
editor of the bulletins on the progress of mediaeval studies in the
United States. The fact that this is the contribution of a teacher in
a western state-university, where conditions as to hours of labor and
library facilities at best are not as favorable as in the leading univer-
sities in the East, is a splendid tribute to the individual] initiative
and spirit of codperation of the mediaeval scholars in this country.
None has shown a finer and more generous spirit than Professor
Willard, and the fact that a western state-university provided
funds for such an enterprise is a hopeful sign in these days when even
academic interests are too often primarily in immediate and material
Historical Background and Prospect 17
things. Finally, to the influential leadership, the tireless energy, the
wise judgment, and the tempered optimism of Professor Rand all of
us are most deeply indebted. |
The next chapter in the development of mediaeval studies in
America is still to be written. The purpose of the Mepi1anvat AcaD-
EMY OF AMERICA as formulated by the incorporators is clear: IT
conduct, encourage, promote and support research, publication, and
instruction in Mediaeval records, literature, languages, arts, archae-
ology, history, philosophy, science, life, and all other aspects of Me-
diaeval civilization by publications, by research, and by such other
means as may be desirable, and to hold property for such purpose. |
The activities of the group in the Modern Language Association and
of the Committee of the American Council of Learned Societies have
been merely a preparation for the attainment of these larger objec-
tives. The hope of the Committee on Mediaeval Latin Studies is
that its heritage to the AcapEmy will be a combination of a com-
prehensive vision and practical projects. The interpretation of a
thousand years of civilization is no small task, especially when as
obscured and complex as those of the Middle Ages. It is a task which
will require the codperation and the creative energy of students of
art, archaeology, folk-lore, government, law, literature, medicine,
philosophy, theology and all other branches which help us com-
prehend our mediaeval ancestors. And it is a task fully as significant
for modern civilization as the more notable discoveries in the field
of the natural sciences. To accomplish this task, one of the functions |
of the new AcADEmY will be that of a codrdinating office, a national
and international clearing-house for all matters mediaeval. This
means that the AcapEmy will not take over the activities of any
institution, corporation, or learned society now in existence;
rather will it foster that interest and codrdinate activities already
in being.
Finally, the AcapEmy will provide means to enable scholars to
complete important investigations. Monographs or books on medi-
aeval themes will not need to be published abroad or at the partial
expense of the author as has been the case of two notable works of
the last few years. For all of these projects money is needed. Conser-
18 Historical Background and Prospect
vative estimate places the minimum requirement at one million dol-
lars. For such a need only Professor Manly’s epic appeal is adequate:
The cynical among you are still objecting that such undertakings cost
money, and that while money is poured out in large sums for research in
physics and chemistry and metallurgy and botany and every other branch
of the physical sciences, this support of research is due to the fact that busi-
ness men see immediate practical returns from the development of these
subjects. That it is easier to obtain money for subjects of this kind is true, |
but it is very far from being true that men and women of large wealth are
interested only in subjects that pay in money. They are interested in any
subject that awakens their imaginations by its significance for the large
problems of human history and destiny. Astronomy has for many years
obtained large sums for the equipment and support of the most subtle and
recondite researches. No doubt astronomy has many practical uses, but it
is not these which have enabled it to obtain the funds it needed: it has won
by its appeal to the imagination of men. We of the humanities have been
too reticent, too lacking in human fellowship. We too have stars in our
firmament, systems as mysterious and fascinating as comets or double suns,
but we have too seldom invited the public to look through our telescopes
and share our visions of the strange and interesting processes by which the
chaotic chatter of anthropoid apes has been organized in the wonderful
fabric of human speech or their formless outbursts of emotion have after
many centuries issued in lyric and drama... .
There is... plenty of money in the world, and the men and women who
control it are ready to give it freely for visions — visions of all kinds — vi-
sions of food for starving peoples, visions of wider opportunities for cramped
lives, visions of astronomical discoveries, or of excavations of long-buried
civilizations, visions of dead poets and painters and lawgivers, visions of
man in every stage of his long climb up from his feeble and brutish begin-
nings.!
Our immediate task is to rise “‘to the highth of this great argument”
and give men and women of wealth a vision of the wonderful possi-
bilities of this new MepIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA.
Boston UNIVERSITY.
1 Professor John M. Manly, “New Bottles, The President’s Address,”” Publications of the
Modern Language Association, Vol. XXXVI, No.1, March, 1921, pp. lii, lviivii of Proceed-
ings for 1920.
THE SPREAD OF IDEAS IN THE MIDDLE AGES!
By CHARLES HOMER HASKINS
N THE general history of ideas an important chapter deals with
the means by which ideas are carried from individual to individ-
ual and from group to group. The story is a long one, with the club
and the sword and similar instruments of sweet reasonableness at one
end, and the headline, the aeroplane, and the radio at the other,
while slower and possibly more efficacious agencies lie between. The
Middle Ages present a special phase of the subject, combining as
they did static rural conditions and primitive modes of travel with a
social structure which required a certain amount of communication
between widely separated units of the same type, so that extreme
localism in some respects coexisted with a common European civili-
zation in others. Certain historians have accordingly stressed the
regional, others the general, elements in mediaeval culture, with a:
tendency toward a vague and mystical Volksgeist on the one hand or!
an equally vague and mystical Zeitgeist on the other. A more realistic
view of mediaeval society may be reached by considering briefly the
more common ways by which ideas passed, and noting some matters
toward which investigation may profitably be directed. This paper
aims to suggest and illustrate by examples to which any one can
easily add, rather than to present the results of a specific piece of re-
search. The word “idea” is used, for lack of a better, to include not
only abstract conceptions but new information of every sort, new
themes and modes in literature, and new types in art.
In the Roman empire the ease of intercourse and communication |
was proverbial. What with the system of roads and bridges, the
constant passing of troops, officials, and messengers, the free inter-
change of wares between distant provinces, and the habit of long
journeys by sea and land, the amount of travel has been declared
greater than was to be found again before the nineteenth century.”
1 Read before the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 12 November 1924, and before
the American Historical Association, 80 December 1924.
2 L. Friedlinder, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire (New York, 1908-18), I,
o ‘a M. P. Charlesworth, Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire (Cambridge,
19
20 The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages
For specific illustrations it is enough to recall the voyages of Paul of
Tarsus; the vogue of Antioch, Athens, and Alexandria for western
.students; the Phrygian merchant who made seventy-two journeys to
Rome; and the man of Cadiz who travelled all the way to Rome and
back merely to set his eyes on the historian Livy. The result was
a singularly uniform and cosmopolitan civilization throughout the
Roman world, from which the local and provincial spiri€ was strik-
ingly absent and through which ideas passed with singular ease and
swiftness, as exemplified in the “‘ubiquitous professor”’ and in the
spread of Christianity and other forms of Oriental religion.
This unity of life and ideas came to an end in the West with the
Germanic invasions, and in the region of the Mediterranean with the
Saracen conquests. Roads fell into disrepair, commerce dried up,
education declined, and book-learning almost disappeared. Local-
ism was writ large across the Europe of the early Middle Ages, the
localism at first of the tribe and the estate, later shaping itself into
those feudal and manorial units upon which mediaeval society
rested. Both politically and socially these units were very nearly
independent, and the exchange of products and ideas was reduced to
a minimum. Under these conditions culture became regional, at the
widest, and we witness the slow formation of those provincialisms
which still survive so tenaciously — types of cottage roofs and
schools of ecclesiastical architecture, local products of the soil and
local cuisines, local costume and local custom, local saints and local
beliefs, local dialects and folk-lore and literary traditions — all that
mass of deep-rooted and full-bodied localisms which give to Europ-
ean life its variety and flavor and sense of age-long contact with the
soil. Naturally ideas and information spread only slowly, and
against great resistance, from one district to another; custom deter-
mined everything, and the type altered little from age to age. If this
were all of mediaeval life, our theme were soon exhausted.
As a matter of fact, the spread of ideas in the Middle Ages is only
in part a history of slow diffusion through the resisting medium of
local habit and custom. It is chiefly concerned with the relations of
scattered centres of another sort, stations of high tension, if you like,
communicating with other stations of the same type with compara-
The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages 21
tively little reference to distance or the nature of the intervening
space. Such centres, representing different social strata, consisted
chiefly of monasteries and cathedrals, courts, towns, and universi-
ties. |
That the church was the chief source of unity for mediaeval so-
ciety is a commonplace which is not open to dispute. When, how-
ever, we pass beyond the fundamentals of law and creed and ritual to
the cultural side of the church’s influence, we must make certain dis-
tinctions. The church drew men to Rome, but only in small numbers
before the twelfth century, when the growth of the canon law and the
centralization of the papal monarchy began to compel or at least en-
courage the presence of ever-increasing numbers of litigants and peti-
tioners and other visitors ad lumina Sanctorum Apostolorum. The
church sent men on distant pilgrimages, but the pilgrims moved to
specific places by definite routes whose significance we are only be-
ginning to understand. The church fostered ecclesiastical architec-
ture, but the types of building and decoration show a strange com-
bination of regional influences and of imitation of far distant types —
through the intermediary of pilgrims and travelling prelates and
architects, like that Villard de Honnecourt whose surviving sketch-
book shows him at Chartres and Lausanne and in Hungary as well as
in his native Picardy. The history of ecclesiastical travel has much to_
teach us.
In the earlier Middle Ages the chief centres of intellectual life
were the various monasteries, set like scattered islands of knowledge
in a sea of ignorance and barbarism, and the spread of knowledge was
chiefly from one such centre to another. Much of this intercourse
was naturally local, but much of it also was at long distance, by
routes which we do not yet fully understand. Thus the annals of a
group of Anglo-Norman establishments were based on annals which
came from the Rhine by way of Burgundy and went back ultimately
to the Easter-tables of Bede. A detailed description of the opening of
Charlemagne’s tomb at Aachen by Otto II turns up unexpectedly at
Novalese on the Mount Cenis pass.! A noteworthy report of King
John’s condemnation by the court of Philip Augustus appears in the
1 Th. Lindner, Die Fabel con der Bestattung Karls des Grossen (Aachen, 1898).
22 The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages
annals of Margam, on the Welsh border.! Bury St Edmunds in
1181-82 has a six-months’ visit from the Norwegian archbishop Ey-
stein.2 Matthew Paris at St Albans had detailed information re-
,specting the Tartars.* The monks of Mont-Saint-Michel in Nor-
mandy were in close touch with those of Monte Santangelo on the
. east coast of Italy, where St Michael was also the patron. St Ev-
roult in Normandy sent out daughter monasteries to Mileto, Venosa,
and St Eufemia in Italy, where its local ritual, the cantus Uticensis,
was sung long afterward.‘ The miracles of St Nicholas, so important
in the history of the religious drama, passed from the East via St
Nicholas of Bari as far as Bec and Hildesheim, not only to churches
dedicated to this patron saint but also to others along the road like S.
Salvatore at Lucca,' as attested by its portal. The monastic confra-
ternitates often joined widely separated communities, and the mor-
tuary rotuli travelled long distances. One of the best illustrations of
the fallacy of a merely regional view is Traube’s study of the so-
called ‘‘national hands,” in which he demonstrated that there was no
such thing as a Merovingian or a Lombard book-hand, but only the
handwriting of the several monastic scriptoria, with occasional
monks passing from one to another, so that the manuscripts of
Corbie in Gaul show closer resemblances to manuscripts of northern
Italy than to those of Frankish neighbors.®
As time went on, the possibilities of monastic intercourse were en-
larged and systematized by the formation of the great organizations
of Cluni and Citeaux with their chapters and visitations and syste-
matic colonization; and the share of these orders in the spread of
French culture to Germany and Spain has long been recognized by
historians of art. In the Franciscan and Dominican orders the local
1 F. M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy (Manchester, 1913), pp. 468 ff.
2H. G. Leach, Angevin Britain and Scandinavia (Cambridge, Mass., 1921), pp. 89-95.
3 Chronica Mavora, passim.
4 Ordericus Vitalis (ed. A. Le Prévost, Paris, 1888-55), II, 89-91.
6 A. K. Porter, Romanesque Sculpture (Boston, 1923), nos. 224, 225; and, in general, G. R.
‘Coffman, A New Theory concerning the Origin of the Miracle Play (Menasha, Wis., 1914),
pp. 45-66; and in Manly Anniversary Studies (Chicago, 1923), pp. 269-275.
6 See particularly his “Perrona Scottorum,” Sizungsberichte of the Munich Academy
(phil.-hist. K]., 1900), pp. 472-476; and in his Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen (Munich, 1909-
1920), III, 97-99.
The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages 23
element almost disappears in a European organization which em-
phasizes uniformity and migration. At the hands of the friars his-
toriography becomes general rather than local, while works of theo-
logy and erudition circulate freely among their new centres of study
and teaching. Even the suppression of heresy by the Dominican In-
quisition tends indirectly to favor the wide and rapid circulation of
the standard manuals of doctrine and procedure.
The importance of the cathedral as an intellectual centre dates
from the ninth century, when the maintenance of cathedral schools
and the adoption of the common life of the canons were prescribed by
the Carolingian legislation. In spite of their growing divergence of
interests, bishop and chapter constituted for most purposes a single
intellectual group, having affinities on the one hand with monastic
communities and on the other with the feudal courts, while the ec-
clesiastical organization ensured a certain amount of communication
within each province. The intellectual influence of the cathedral
centres reached its height in the revival of the twelfth century, as
seen in the spread of translations from the Arabic under Archbishop
Raymond of Toledo, in the continental relations of Canterbury under
Archbishops Theobald and Thomas Becket, and in the resort from all
parts of Europe to the cathedral schools of northern France.
The court, feudal, episcopal, or royal, is important primarily for
the circulation of the courtly type of literature, through the inter-
mediary of jongleurs, trouvéres, and golzardz, those “‘jongleurs of the
clerical world.”” Such composers and colporteurs required patrons,
and only the richer courts could offer them permanent support, so
that they were perforce migratory, passing from court to court or
moving about with a migratory patron, like the “Archpoet”’ with the|
archbishop of Cologne in the wake of Frederick Barbarossa. In this
way the subject-matter of French poetry spredd over western
Europe; original French and Provengal lyrics acquired currency in
Italy; and French became the courtly language of a large part of
Latin Christendom. Even the larger courts shared their men of let-
ters: Peter of Blois was the ‘intimate friend’ of the rulers of England
and of Sicily; ! the poet Henry of Avranches, who has a pension and
1 Stubbs, introduction to Roger of Hoveden, I, xcii.
24 The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages
a livery of wine from Henry III of England, is also found writing
Latin verse for Frederick II.1 And when whole courts wandered, as
on the Crusades or the Rémerziige of the German emperors, the pos-
sibilities are obvious. Nor was the interchange of courts limited to
belles-lettres. Otto III receives his Byzantine ideas of government
through his mother; Manuel Comnenus sends Ptolemy’s Almagest as
a present to the king of Sicily; while Frederick IT is in scientific cor-
respondence with various Saracen sovereigns. King Roger draws to
Palermo men of learning from every land, and one of his officials,
Master Thomas Brown, is afterward found sitting at the Exchequer
of Henry II.? Henry’s Assize of Arms was, we are told, one of the
administrative expedients imitated by Philip Augustus.* French
royal institutions were used as models in creating the central govern-
ment of the Burgundian state, while this in turn served as a type for
the Hapsburgs when Maximilian brought skilled officials from the
Netherlands to Vienna. In a still different field lies the well-known
fact of the spread of Wiclif’s doctrines to Bohemia by the marriage of
Richard II. Historians ought frequently to heed, not only Lavisse’s
reminder that kings, like other people, inherit from their mothers,
but also the fact that kings and their courts are influenced by their
wives and their wives’ relatives and followers.
The towns of the Middle Ages were, like the monasteries, islands,
islands, in this instance, of political and social freedom in a sea of rural
bondage. While they grew in part by drawing to their free air serfs
from the adjacent country, their relations were chiefly with other
towns. Here again geographical proximity was not the only occasion
for contact. If the urban constitution of Soissons was imitated
chiefly by its immediate neighbors and in Burgundy, the Etablvsse-
ments of Rouen spread through the Plantagenet dominions to the
1 Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XVIII (1878), 482-492; Monatschrift fiir die
Geschichte W est-Deutschlands, IV (1878), 386-844. One of my students, Mr Josiah C. Russell,
is preparing a study of Henry of Avranches.
2 See my Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science (Cambridge, Mass., 1924), chs. 9,
12; and, for Anglo-Sicilian relations, my articles in English Historical Rericw, XXVI (1911),
4838-447, 641-665. On the foreign relations of the court of Henry II, see Stubbs, Seventeen
Lectures on Mediaeval and Modern History, chs. 6 and 7; and my paper in the Essays in Medt-
eval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester, 1925), pp. 71-77.
3 Haskins, Norman Institutions (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), p. 198.
The Spread of Ideas 1n the Middle Ages 25
Spanish frontier, while the customs of the Norman bourg of Breteuil
have been traced as far as the Welsh border and Ireland.! The inter-
course of towns was primarily commercial, and it is not easy to dis-
cern the manifold connections between the exchange of wares and the
exchange of ideas.? Significant illustrations may be seen in the
spread of Albigensian doctrines from Italy to France and the Low
Countries through the industrial population — weaver (teztor) and |
heretic were often synonymous in the North — and in the share of
the Italian cities in the transmission of Byzantine learning to the
West through Italians resident at Constantinople (Burgundio the
Pisan, Moses of Bergamo, James of Venice, etc.). The intellectual
role of the cities is, however, hard to follow in the case of the Cru-
sades, for alongside the general enlargement of experience and of the
subject-matter of romance there is little to set in the way of new sci-
entific knowledge from the East. The Crusaders were, in the nature
of the case, not scholars or men of ideas: the amount of translation
from the Arabic in Palestine and Syria is surprisingly small, and even
the new geographical learning filters very slowly indeed into the
manuals of the thirteenth century.* Fairs are an especially impor-
tant phase of urban intercourse, while toward the close of the Middle
Ages the growth of capitals and metropolitan markets in the case of
London and Paris introduces a new relation whose intellectual im-
plications need further study.‘ By this time, too, there was a bour-
geois literature and an urban art to communicate from town to town.
The importance of the mediaeval universities in the spread of
knowledge may be taken for granted. By its very definition a stu-
dium generale was open to scholars from every country, and students
and professors passed freely from one institution to another, carrying
with them books and lecture-notes and whatever else their heads
1G. Bourgin, La commune de Soissons (Paris, 1908); A. Giry, Les Etablissements de
Rouen (Paris, 1883-85); Mary Bateson, ‘‘The Laws of Breteuil,”” English Historical Review,
XV-XVI (1900-1901).
2 On the travel of merchants, see H. Pirenne, Mediaeval Cities (Princeton, 1925), and
his references.
3 Haskins, Mediaeral Science, chs. 7, 10; J. K. Wright, Geographical Lore of the Time of
the Crusades (New York, 1925), pp. 77, 87, 292.
4 T. F. Tout, The Beginnings of a Modern Capital (British Academy, 1923); the volumes |
of Marcel Poéte on mediaeval Paris; and the studies of N. S. B. Gras on the metropolitan
market.
26 The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages
contained. These conditions secured easy communication between
distant seats of learning, while they also favored the quick diffusion
of knowledge through the educated class. Moreover, the universities
|were the earliest centres of the book trade as we understand it, and
the provisions for the multiplication, sale, and rent of standard
works helped these at least to travel by their own momentum. In
these respects the university life of the later Middle Ages reached a
comparatively close approximation to early modern conditions; the
chief difference, to use Shaw’s phrase, lay in the iconography. From
the thirteenth century onward we can register with some definiteness
the knowledge of the university world, and the principal scholastic
writers have been the subject of minute investigation. The obscurer
problems lie rather in the period immediately preceding — the
sources and the course of the new Aristotle, the new medicine, and
the new Euclid and Ptolemy; the origin and career of the northern
translators who appear unheralded in Spain and Sicily; the routes by
which their work passed northward, and its reception in the monastic
and cathedral schools of the twelfth century. Michael Scot suddenly
makes his appearance at Toledo in 1217; what was his earlier career?
Daniel of Morley toward 1200 returned to England from Spain with
“‘a precious multitude of books”; what did they contain? Did the
Fourth Crusade have any discoverable relation to the spread of
Greek learning? !
The migration of books is always an important phase of the mi-
gration of ideas, and this was peculiarly true in the Middle Ages,
when scholarship depended in so large a degree upon antecedent au-
thority. The choice spirits of all ages have influenced one another
with surprising disregard of time and space, the spirit leaping from
one to another as it listeth through the medium of the written page;
but in the Middle Ages everything depended on the transmission of
the written page. “Plato,” says Coulton,? “might have shaken
hands with Anselm,” but actually he could not, for Anselm had ac-
cess to no work of Plato save a part of the Timaeus. For various
reasons books had very little independent movement of their own.
1 We need more studies like that of Miss Dorothy Stimson, The Gradual Acceptance of the
Copernican Theory of the Universe (Columbia University thesis. 1917).
3 G. G. Coulton, Five Centuries of Religion (Cambridge, 1923), I, 21.
The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages 27
Bemg valued neither as furniture nor as fuel, they were closely con-
nected with the centres of intellectual activity, and the migration of
books is for the most part a phase of the intercourse between such
centres.
I do not mean to claim exhaustiveness for the foregoing list of
centres active in the spread of ideas and information, still less to
imply that each worked at long range only and in entire isolation
from the others. Recent studies show interrelations between the
regular and the secular clergy in the same neighborhood,! and inter-
penetration of the lay and ecclesiastical worlds in art and music and
literature to an extent once deemed impossible. Nevertheless, the
main problem lies in tracing the connections within these respective |
sets of centres, the paths along which ideas moved from place to
place. These obscurer topics require investigation at once more
thorough and more comprehensive than heretofore. On the side of
detailed research we need to know more of mediaeval roads viewed
as lines of communication, and their relations to the centres of learn-
ing and literature. “In the beginning was the road,” says Bédier.?
The course of the roads is known, but the historical facts have not
been sufficiently grouped about them and analyzed, their wayfaring
life has not been sufficiently explored. We also need to study more
closely the “‘ wanderings and homes of manuscripts,” the catalogues
of mediaeval libraries, the content of the European mind at definite
intervals.
A realistic study of the spread of knowledge must also take ac-
count of the rapidity of movement, the rate as well as the route. The
report of Frederick Barbarossa’s death in Asia Minor required
four months to reach Germany, while the news of Richard’s cap-
tivity in Austria reached England in about as many weeks. At this
period the normal time from Rome to Canterbury was seven weeks, '
but urgent news could make the journey in four.’ Was the rapidity
1 E.g.,G. R. Coffman, “‘A New Approach to Mediaeval Latin Drama,”’ Modern Philology, —
XXII (1925), 239-271.
2 Les légendes Epiques (2d ed., Paris, 1914-1921), III, 867.
3 R. L. Poole, The Early Correspondence of John of Salisbury (British Academy, 1924),
p. 6. F. Ludwig, Untersuchungen iiber die Reise- und Marschgeschwindigkeit im xii. und ritt.
Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1897), is useful so far as it goes.
28 The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages
with which books crossed Europe really so remarkable as it seemed to
Renan? ! How fast did a book or a scholar actually travel? What do
we know about the exchange of letters in the days before the post?
We also need to apply to the Latin literature of the period more of
the searching investigation of origins and connections which has been
applied to the vernacular, and to consider more closely the mutual
relations of Latin and vernacular. Above all, for many of these prob-
lems we need the combined effort of the historian, the geographer, the
philosopher, the philologist, and the archaeologist, specialists who
have too often, especially in the United States, worked in the isola-
tion of separate compartments.
May I reénforce this argument by citing two pieces of synthetic
research performed by scholars outside the conventional field of his-
tory yet yielding results of wide significance to the historian? One is
the work of Bédier on the mediaeval epic, the other the recent study
of Romanesque sculpture by Arthur Kingsley Porter.? Bédier, by a
brilliant combination of evidence drawn from literature, history, to-
pography, and archaeology, places the French epics in an entirely
new light, both as literary and as historical documents. Instead of °
resting upon songs and sagas of the earlier Middle Ages, these poems
are shown to belong to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, whose
point of view and conditions of life they reflect, and to represent
specific sources of information, not the vague and elusive tout le
monde of popular tradition. They were composed in large measure
for the travelling public of pilgrims and frequenters of fairs, and to a
considerable degree out of local materials furnished by those con-
cerned with specific shrines and relics, especially shrines situated
along the great routes of pilgrimage, Roman roads then marked by
masses of Roman ruins in which many of the imaginary scenes are
localized. Written by travellers and for travellers, they must be in-
terpreted in relation to Rome and Compostela, while they show the
closest codperation of classes once deemed entirely distinct, the
monks and the jongleurs, and a free interpenetration of vernacular
1 FE. Renan, Acerroés (Paris, 1869), pp. 201 f.
2 Bédier, Les légendes épiques, ed. cit.; A. K. Porter, Romanesque Sculpture on the Pil-
‘grimage Roads (10 vols., Boston, 1923). I do not mean to imply that all the conclusions of
these scholars have won universal acceptance.
The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages 29
and sacred literature. Even Charlemagne, grim conqueror of the
Saxons and the Avars yet unknown to the northern epic, is annexed
by the pilgrim and the crusader and turned toward the South and the
pilgrims’ roads, defending Rome from Saracens who had never been
there in his time, celebrated above all for the three journeys consum-
ing fourteen years in Spain, which he visited but once, blazoned forth
on the windows at Chartres for the journey to Constantinople, and
Jerusalem, which he never took at all. And Einhard’s sentence on
Roland, sometimes considered an interpolation, becomes the plausi-
ble origin of the Chanson de Roland, which celebrates specific shrines
on the pilgrims’ and crusaders’ road to Spain, — a combination of
the knightly and the clerical, of the Latin and the vernacular which
breaks down all the water-tight compartments of convention.
To this demonstration of the inadequacy of merely regional and
traditional explanations in the fluid material of literature Porter’s
study comes as a sort of corollary in the stiffer medium of stone.
Here the theory of provincial schools of Romanesque architecture
_had already admitted Byzantine influences in Périgord and evident
relationship between the sculpture of both sides of the Pyrenees. By
close study of the monuments along the pilgrimage roads Porter
shows the northward spread of Byzantine influences and the type of
the Holy Sepulchre; but his fullest demonstration traces the diffusion
of Cluniac art, first in Burgundy, then to England, Galicia, Germany,
Apulia, and Palestine, but especially by the great road to the shrine
of St James at Compostela, along which “there was a distinct ten-
dency for Cluniac priories, for relics, and for monumental sculpture
to gather.”
This particular mode of inquiry is not, of course, to be imitated
everywhere. The science of the Arabs came from Toledo, not Com-
postela; the religious ideas of St Francis did not spring from the
French songs which he loved in his worldly youth; the sources of the
Canterbury Tales cannot be traced at wayside stations on the Old
Kent Road! What is of general validity for the spread of ideas is the
emphasis upon habitual lines of communication, the fresh scrutiny of
all available material, the realistic and many-sided approach, the
combined attack at once by land and sea and air!
80 The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages
Finally, it may perhaps be suggested that the older modes of
communicating ideas have not, even now, entirely disappeared, but
survive in ways that are often overlooked. If the newer psychology
detects mediaeval survivals in the contemporary mind of the individ-
ual, attention may also be called to their persistence in our social
mind in the mechanism by which ideas pass from group to group. We
are too prone to forget the prevalence of intellectual stratification
and non-communicating groups. Ideas still move in part according
to social and intellectual units. Thus universities and academies are
still to a certain extent, though in a far less degree, islands in the
midst of ignorance; scientists communicate with scientists, and pro-
fessors with professors, without regard to the intervening medium.
So Greenwich Village speaks to Greenwich Village, while the Ku
Klux Klan may flourish in the shadow of great universities. Ches-
terton says somewhere that the Englishman who goes abroad to see
different people could find greater surprises in his own kitchen. So-
called high-brow movements in politics are too apt to think only of
other high-brows and forget the “low-brow” voters of whom majori-
ties are made. [Illustrations could be multiplied indefinitely; I have
meant merely to suggest that certain contemporary conditions can be
more easily understood in the light of the intellectual history of
earlier times.
Harvarp UNIVERsITY.
THE VOCABULARY OF THE ANNALES FULDENSES
By CHARLES H. BEESON
O the uninitiated, who form their conclusion from a comparison
of the imposing exterior of the seven volumes of DuCange with
the modest single volume of Harper’s Latin Dictionary, the con-
tribution of the Middle Ages to the vocabulary of Mediaeval Latin
is likely to be greatly exaggerated; to the occasional reader of me-
diaeval literary texts who is forced to seek aid from these volumes
the impression is possibly even more exaggerated, since he finds that
in spite of its bulk this great work so often fails him. Even scholars
who have more than a speaking acquaintance with DuCange will not
agree. The theologian, for whom DuCange is an encyclopedia rather
than a dictionary, may entertain the belief that the work is fairly
complete; the historian will not be so optimistic, though opinion
may vary with the character of the text he happens to be reading.
At the opposite extreme from the theologian will be found the stu-
dent of literature; a scholar working in the field of Mediaeval Latin
poetry has gone on record with the statement that he has consulted
DuCange many times and has invariably been disappointed. For the
first misconception mentioned above the encyclopaedic character of
DuCange is to blame, for the second the fact that its interests are
so largely theological.
It is the purpose of the present article to analyze the vocabulary
of a short Mediaeval Latin text and to indicate the extent and char-
acter of the new elements that have entered into it. The text chosen
is the so-called Annales Fuldenses for the years 838-887 (ed. Kurze,
pp. 29-107), the Latinity of which reveals a command of language
on the part of the writer and a control of syntax that can scarcely be
paralleled in the chronicles of the time. The subject matter and the
simple style has enabled the writer to content himself with a vocabu-
lary of comparatively modest dimensions; the choice of words is
1 Most of the material has been taken from the collections made by my student Miss
Helena Gamer, who is writing a dissertation for the Master’s degree on the Vocabulary and
Syntax of the Annales.
$1
32 The Vocabulary of the Annales Fuldenses
made with unusual precision. To what extent do our dictionaries
meet the very moderate demands made by the reader of such a text?
The vocabulary of the Annales has been checked with DuCange
and Forcellini-DeVit, Tottus Latinitatis Lexicon, the work which is to .
serve as the starting point for the new DuCange. Occasional refer-
ence is also made to Harper’s Latin Dictionary.
The first considerable addition to the vocabulary of Classical Latin
was the influx, in the early centuries of our era, of ecclesiastical
words, many of them being Greek. These words are fairly well pro-
vided for, at least as far as the commoner ones are concerned, by For-
cellini and Harper. This accounts for the fact that the number of
new words in the Annales is so astonishingly small. The only word
that is not found in any of the dictionaries is compendior, ‘shorter’
(for CL. compendiostor), per vam compendiorem, p. 88. Until another
instance of the occurrence of this word is reported, it may be regarded
with suspicion as being the product of a scribal error. New forms are:
the superlative adverb tmmantssime, boum pestilentia emmantssime
grassata est, p. 92, and the names of the months Septembrius, Octo-
brius and Novembrius, which occur along with the CL. forms.
The following words are not found in Forcellini: abbatta, ‘abbey,’
p. 93; archicapellanus, ‘archchaplain,’ p. 30; canonicus, ‘canon,’ p.
97; forconsilio (forts consilio), “plot against,’ eos forconsiliabo (v. l.
fores consiliabo), p. 55; insignium (= insigne), missis et insignirs
regalibus, p. 31; marca, ‘border’ ‘boundary,’ quibus custodia com-
missa erat Pannonici limits et Carantant atque per suos marcam
ordinavit, p. 55; rationabiliter (= ratiocinabiliter or rationaliter),
hereticus rationabiliter convictus est, p. 38 (for the meaning cf. epzs-
copos deposuit et communione privavit; tuste quidem et canonice, p. 57;
errationabiliter is found in Forcellini and Harper); suffraganeus,
‘suffragan,’ p. 70; supervsta, ‘aedituus,’ from srepiorns, p. 99; vas-
salus, ‘vassal,’ p. 36. All of these words are found in DuCange, and
abbatva and canonicus in Harper also.
In the case of new meanings of words found in the dictionaries,
the situation is not so satisfactory. Many of the old words developed
new meanings as the natural result of their evolution: e. g., medians,
‘mediating,’ from CL. “being in the middle.’ Others changed their
The Vocabulary of the Annales Fuldenses 33
meanings to meet new conditions: e. g., comes, ‘count.’ Sometimes
the new meaning is the opposite of the old one: e. g., lubertus, ‘freed-
man,’ is equivalent to servus, since this class was gradually reduced
to a condition of servitude. Other words are often used with a
meaning that only roughly corresponds to the original force and in
consequence the precise meaning may be missed: e. g., provincia
may be used of a territory which is under the jurisdiction of a count
( = comitatus) or of a bishop (= dzoecesis); the nobles are referred
to more or less loosely as nobiles, primores, primates, optimates, or
even senatus. Occasionally a special or technical word has become
generalized: e. g., supplicatio in CL. has reference to a definite cere-
mony of thanksgiving, in ML. it means ‘supplication’ ‘prayer’;
lator in CL. means the ‘mover’ or ‘proposer’ of a law, in ML. it
means the ‘bearer’ of a letter or report. Finally some words have
become specialized in meaning: e. g., fideles means the ‘faithful sub-
jects’ of a king or has an ecclesiastical connotation. Our classical
dictionaries generally furnish a clue to these new meanings, but not
always. That many of them have escaped DuCange is not surprising
when one considers the enormous mass of mediaeval literature.
There is less excuse perhaps for his failure to register the new mean-
ings from the Annales since he occasionally does cite this text in his
definitions.
The following meanings are not found in any of the dictionaries:
abtectio, ‘deposition,’ audiia umperatoris abiectione, p. 107; confirmo,
orientales Francos sibi fidelitatis cure confirmavitt, 1. e., he assures their
allegiance by having them perform the act of homage, p. 31; con-
stringo, ‘bind one’s self,’ se tuwramento constrinzit, p. 93; contestor,
‘testify’ ‘assert,’ a weakening of the legal meaning, contestatus est
suae non fuisse voluntatis, p. 36; deficio, ‘scatter’ ‘disappear,’ que
evadere potuerunt, in civitates defecerunt, p. 76; dispono, ‘arrange’
‘decide,’ cum fratrem invisere disposursset, p. 41; exauctoro, ‘depose’
‘put out of office,’ altos nonnullos exauctoravit et beneficta multo vilrort-
bus dedit personis, p. 100 (in CL. the word means ‘discharge’ a sol-
dier,— DuCange has the noun exauctoratvo in the mediaeval meaning) ;
expugnatio, ‘pursuit’ of an enemy, not ‘attack’ on a place, ab erpug-
natione hostium desistens, p. 97; iwmminens, ‘a coming on suddenly,’
34 The Vocabulary of the Annales Fuldenses
not ‘impending’ as in CL., propter tmbrium inundationem et frigus
imminens non modicum equorum suorum perpessi sunt damnum, p.
104; emmunts = liberatus, a suo turamento reddidit immunem, p. 93;
lator, ‘reporter’ ‘witness,’ quantas caedes et tncendia tin itinere exer-
cuerit, quia certum latorem non habui, scribere nolut, p. 85 (Forcellini
gives the meaning ‘letter carrier’ in addition to the legal meaning
mentioned above); mereor, ‘be deemed worthy,’ Deo gratias egit quia
filium sanum recipere merurt, p. 41; modus, ‘contents’ ‘tenor,’ epts-
tolam hune modum continens, p. 101; nuntium, ‘messenger,’ Bohe-
morum nunita rex audivit, p. 83 (DuCange gives the meaning ‘le-
gatio’); opus, ‘deed,’ voluntatem opere complesset, p. 41 (DuCange
cites only ‘opus turpe’ which he defines as “crimen infame’); praeda
= praedaito, which also occurs in the Annales, regnum illius praedis
et incendis fatigaverunt, p. 101; praefero, ‘place over’ as prefect,
praelatus est Carantanis, p. 57; praevaleo = possum, ita ut nec manum
quidem ad os mittere praevaleam, p. 68; relaxo, ‘forgive,’ ut [peccata]
tibt relaxentur, p. 77; supplicatio, ‘entreaty,’ not addressed to the
gods, regem crebris supplicationrbus sollicitant, p. 43; texo = narro,
quoniam per omnia longum est texere (v. l., explicare) qualiter desuda-
verit, p. 54; textus, ‘text’ ‘contents,’ cuius sacramenti textus theu-
tonica lingua conscriptus, p. 89; vermes, ‘locusts,’ vermes quast
locustae, quattuor pennts volantes et sex pedes habentes, ab oriente
venerunt et universam superficiem terrae instar nwis operuerunt, cuncta
quae in agris et in pratrs erant viridia, devastantes, p. 79.
The following meanings are not found in Forcellini: aspicio =
pertineo, causae ad se ipsum specialiter aspicientes, p. 42; asststo,
‘advise,’ qui patrt emperatoris assistere solebant, p. 98 (in CL. used
only of trial proceedings); attestatzo, “calling to witness’ ‘invoking,’
cum attestatione divint nominis, p. 37; beneficium, ‘benefice,’ vicum
Dorestadum iure beneficti tenuit, p. 39; bicameratum, ‘of two rooms,’
oratorium bicameratum, p. 78 (Forcellini defines, ‘having two
storeys’); clusa, ‘mountain pass,’ clusis Alpium se defendere nititur,
p. 85; comes, ‘count’ and comitatus, the ‘territory’ under his juris-
diction, several cases; confusto, ‘shame’ ‘disgrace,’ ad confustonem
sui totiusque exercitus, p. 99, so also confusus; contradico, ‘forbid,’
tlla contradicente ne tantum scelus committeret, p. 40; conventus genera-
The Vocabulary of the Anvales Fuldenses 35
lis, ‘diet,’ p. 29; cruz, ‘crucifix,’ cum reliquits et crucibus, p. 52; dexz-
trae, ‘alliance’ ‘compact,’ Behemz dextras sibt a Carlmanno dart
petunt et acciptunt, p. 70; dziaconus cardinalts, ‘cardinal deacon,’ p.
104; discursus, ‘despatch,’ frequentibus legatorum discursibus, p. 53;
dissimulo, ‘refrain from,’ an extension of the classical meaning
‘neglect’ ‘disregard,’ ceteris omnibus a susceptrone evus dissimulanti-
bus, p. 44; eprscopatus, ‘territory controlled by a bishop,’ cut rex
episcopatus et abbatias et comitatus ad servitium delegavit, p. 93;
excutvo, ‘carry off,’ praedam excussit, p. 100; factvo, ‘evil deed’ ‘plot,’
validissimam conspirationem libertorum legitimos dominos opprimere
conantium, auctoribus factiontbus capitals sententia damnaits, fortiter
conpescutt, p. 33; huruscemodt factions, p. 87 (referring to an inva-
sion); fidelzs, ‘subject’ ‘vassal’ (DuCange, ‘qui fidem suam domino
obstrinxit’), ab alws fidelibus emperatoris invitatus, p. 102 (the eccle-
siastical meaning does not occur in the Annales); homo, ‘subject’
‘man,’ homines Arabavi episcopt adversus dominum suum conspiran-
tes, p. 37; homo, ‘body,’ mortalem hominem exurt (1. e., obit), p. 46; in-
fra = intra, infra quaesturam suam, p. 43; intervento, ‘intercede,’ ut
animae in tormentis positae suis apud Deum precibus tntervenissent,
p. 82; laudes, ‘lauds,’ clero laudes vespertinas celebrante, p. 45; It-
bertus = servus, validissimam conspirationem libertorum legitimos
dominos opprimere conantium, p. 33; medians, ‘acting as mediator,’
Inutberto mediante, p. 65; memoratus, “before mentioned,’ memoratus
pontifer, p. 91 (in Harper); optimates, ‘nobles’ ‘vassals,’ principes
et optimates regni, p. 46; paradisus, ‘entrance’ ‘vestibule’ of a
church, in paradiso Sancti Petri, p. 99; placitum generale, ‘assembly’
‘diet,’ placitum generale habuit, p. 35 (placitum, ‘decision,’ also oc-
curs, always in the singular; Forcellini cites only the plural form
with this meaning); praefero = praeficio, qut praelatus est Caran-
tanis, p. 56; quaestronarius and quaestura, meaning the ‘judge,’ and
his ‘district,’ ut nullus quaestionarius infra quaesturam causam susct-
peret agendam, p. 43; remedium, ‘expiation’ ‘salvation,’ nist verus
Deus esset non afferret remedium, p.106 (DuCange cites only remedium
animae with this meaning); series, ‘contents’ ‘text,’ sacramentt
series huiusmodi furt, p. 54, partes utriusque scriptorum (‘letters’)
seriem, p. 58; signum, ‘bell,’ sugnes ecclesiae concrepantibus, p. 48;
36 The Vocabulary of the Annales Fuldenses
sophista, ‘scholar,’ Hrabanus sophista et sur temporis poetarum secun-
dus nulli, p. 35; villa, ‘village’ (in Harper), common; viva voce =
proprio ore, Karolus viva voce multis audientibus retultt, p. 78.
All of these meanings are found in DuCange except discursus,
which is provided for s. v. discurrere: discurrere dicuntur misst qui
mittuntur in provincias and praefero, which is, however, implied in
the definition of praelatus.
Mediaeval Latin developed many new idioms and constructions
which received little or no attention from DuCange. When these
have been registered in the new dictionary, it will be possible to write
a Grammar of Mediaeval Latin.
The following departures from the classical idiom may be noted
(the list is not complete). Adhibeo is used with a dative, comttes suis
adhibens consiliis, p. 65; ascendo, ‘go up’ a river, per alveum Rhent
fluminis ascendentes, p. 100 (this verb is transitive in Forcellini, but
the absolute use is common in the Vulgate); caro is always plural,
which is rare in CL.; coepi is used superfluously, st contra eos pug-
nare coepertmus non eos sine cruenta obtinebimus victorva, p. 80; in
contugem accepit, p. 36 occurs for CL. tn matrimonium duxit; con-
stitutus is used as a substitute for the present participle of sum; so
also positus and consistens; cum suis consiliatus, p. 98, is used where
CL. would use consulo with the accusative; corripio is used, like
CL. arguo, with the genitive, infidelitatvs correptus, p. 102; debeo is
used as a future tense sign, twrabant quod nullus deinceps regnum in-
quietare deberet, p. 79; diem ultemum clausit is used for CL. diem su-
premum obit, p. 31; drigo, ‘send’ is frequent with a person as ob-
ject, instead of a thing, as in Forcellini and Harper; evacuo is used
with a separative ablative, Rhenus cuncta loca sibt contigua omnibus
frugibus et lino et foeno evacuavit, p. 104; firmo is followed by a sub-
junctive clause instead of an infinitive, turamento firmans ne quic-
quam deinceps machinaretur, p. 55; habeo is used as a general purpose
word, eo quod 1bt montes initium habeant, p. 51; graves combusturas
habuisse repertt sunt, p. 45; conventum habuit, p. 55; colloquium ha-
bens, p. 72; idem is used for the definite article; ale = is and suus;
immunis is used with de and the ablative where CL. uses the geni-
tive, ablative, or ablative with a, de omnibus criminibus se ostendut
The Vocabulary of the Annales Fuldenses 37
tmmunem, p. 52; the use of de for ab or ex is common in all separative
constructions; 7s = suus; tste = hic, alle and suus; wuro is used with
tn instead of CL. per, in reliquits [sanctorum] iuravi, p. 68; obnoxrius
occurs with the ablative instead of the genitive or dative, crimine
pervuru non tenetur obnoxius, p. 93; omitio is used with quin instead
of an infinitive clause, nolutt omittere qutn expleret, p.71; Deum (CL.
a Deo) postula ut relarentur, p. 77; proficiscor is used superfluously,
exercitibus tre profectis, p. 49 (cf. Eng. ‘start to go’); qualiter = ut,
nisus est qualiter denegaret, p. 90; regno is used with super instead of
wn, Hlutharium super se regnare cupientes, p. 46 (cf. ut aut tpse super
eos regnum susciperet, p. 43); qua is used for nam, p. 46; quidem...
vero occurs several times for pe . . . de; rebello is used for resistere
in the literal sense, cum tantae multttudini rebellare timutssent, p. 102;
rogo is used with an infinitive clause instead of a subjunctive, roga-
bant in bonum monstra convertt, p. 71; sive... swe =at... et;
succedo is used with an ablative phrase instead of an accusative
phrase, qu patri successit in regno, p. 39 (elsewhere also the distinc-
tion between motion to a place and place where is not observed).
The results of this examination of a short text will serve to throw
some light on the character of the task that confronts the revisers of
DuCange and on the importance and necessity of this great under-
taking.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.
THE PROGENITORS OF GOLIAS
By JAMES HOLLY HANFORD
HE name and fame of Bishop Golias as an incarnation of the
libertine spirit in mediaeval culture have been familiar enough
to students since the publication in 1841 of Thomas Wright’s Latin
Poems Commonly Attributed to Walter Mapes.1 Titular author of a
score of satirical and humorous compositions in Latin accentual
verse, noticed early in the thirteenth century by Giraldus Cambren-
sis as a certain parastus, gulositate et leccacitate famossissimus, of
his own day, associated with the term “goliard’”’ as the chief or pat-
ron of a kind of international Bund, the so called ordo vagorum, he
is one of the focal points of an important field of mediaeval enquiry
and, as such, has provoked much scholarly curiosity. The net result
of all discussion thus far has been a disputed etymology and the ver-
dict that Golias, in spite of the veracious Gerald, must be accounted
a mediaeval myth.
A myth assuredly he is. The suggested identification with Walter
Map has never been seriously maintained. The divers origins of the
poems to which the fictitious designation is attached in manuscripts
of the thirteenth century and later is proved beyond a doubt. The
Philistine Archbishop bears too obvious a kinship with his cousin, the
Abbot of Cokaigne, and fits too nicely into the ancestry of Panta-
gruel ? to be other than an analogous grotesque creation of the medi-
aeval mind. It remains to anatomize the conception itself, to trace
the heredity of Golias in turn and to discover, if not the single con-
scious creator of so prolific an idea, at least the definite traditions
which merged to give it being.
We may consider first the roster of the works which actually bear
in one manuscript or another the name of Golias and are therefore his
authentic image as presented to the readers of such nugae in the later
1 Published by the Camden Society.
2 Noted by J. M. Manly, ‘Familia Goliae,’ Modern Philology, V (1907-08), 208-209. See
Rabelais, Pantagruel, chapter I.
$8
[re = —— ee
The Progenitors of Golvas 39
Middle Ages. There are apparently twenty of them in all,' fourteen
in the “goliardic stanza,” three in other accentual rhythms, two in
leonine hexameters, and one in prose. The name Golias, in various
forms, occurs in each case in the rubric. One of the poems ? Is as-
signed not to Golias himself but to a discipulus Golvae, and in an-
other,’ the Epistola Goliae ad Confratres Gallicos, the ascription is
contradicted by the text, for the scapegrace Richard, who com-
mends a travelling friend to the merry topers of the order in France,
describes himself as an Anglus Goliardus, obediens et humilis frater
non bastardus. In another piece, Golias de Coniuge non ducenda,‘
the titular author names himself in the text. He is on the point of
marriage when he is divinely exhorted to abstain:
Golias igitur uxorem fugiat.
This is the only instance of the sort. Elsewhere the personal applica-
tion is a matter of title only and the reader is left to adjust the con-
tent of the poems to the Golias idea as best he can. He has, to aid
him, beside the grotesque image of the Philistine giant and the ety-
mological associations, real or fancied, with goliardus and gula, the
fact that Golias is commonly designated Episcopus, and, in single
instances, Magister and Pontifex.
Is it possible, then, to envisage a dramatic figure, the personifica-
tion of crass and ribald materialism from the poems themselves? Not
a consistent one, certainly. There is, in fact, but a single poem, the
Confessio Golzae,’ in which the lineaments of such a figure are at all
complete, and even here, though we have in rich abundance the char-
acteristic goliardic traits of avowed sensuality and waywardness, an
almost Rabelaisian flouting of the moral and churchly code, we have
no explicit indication of the mock ecclesiastic and patron of graceless
clerks. Indeed the speaker is himself a suitor for indulgence and ap-
1 Wright prints twenty-two poems and the prose satire as bearing the name of Golias. The
three epigrams, nos. 19, 20, 21, are not, however, so entitled in the MSS. The Golias ascrip-
tions for nos. 8, 4, 6, 8, 10 rest on Flacius Ilyricus, Leyser, or Bale, who perhaps had manuscript
authority. One poem not published by Wright, the epigram In cratere meo, is reported by
Meyer (see note 20) as having in an Oxford MS. the title Episcopus Golias cum biberet vinum
miztum aqua.
2 Wright, No. 11. 3 Wright, No. 14.
* Wright, No. 17. 8 Wright, No. 165.
40 The Progenitors of Golias
pointment.! Yet once given the suggestion, we can, without too
great violence, reconstitute the poem as a pronouncement of his
creed and a revelation of his quality. Equally dramatic, but to
different effect, is the poem Dwes eram et dilectus,? inscribed, in the
manuscript used by Wright, simply Golvae. The personality here
is not at all the Golias of the Confessio, expressing through his mock
repentance a frank defiance of the ascetic ideal, but a comically
self-pitying old mendicant of the clergy, indignant at his wrongs.
The idea is more difficult to integrate with “Golias Episcopus”’ than
the other, and the poem was even more clearly not composed as a
dramatic utterance in the person of the Philistine Archbishop. A
third piece ® carries us a little further. It is an exclamatory impreca-
tion of curses on the head of a certain individual who has stolen the
author’s cap, and closes with a burlesque excommunication. The
title in one of Wright’s MSS is Rithmus Guleardi de pilleo furato
ab Eptiscopo dato and in another it is simply “Gol.” which may be
either Goliae or Goliardi, but Wright’s instinct in classing it with the
Golias ascriptions is justified by its appearance as Excommunicatvo
eiusdem episcopi (i. e. Gulii) in Haureau’s MS. of Queen Christina.‘
In two further pieces * we find ourselves still in the same burlesque
atmosphere — the epigram on the mixture of wine and water and
the Goliae Dialogus inter Aquam et Vinum. To this whole group I
shall return for fuller discussion later. However inaccurately they
may fit the implication of the rubrics, they yet supply a kind of con-
tent to the idea, which we shall look for elsewhere in vain. The most
that can be said of the remaining Golias pieces in Wright is that they
are written in a common vein of undignified garrulity, and generally
in the characteristic goliardic quatrain. They do not even exhibit a
single point of view. Some of thein are versified sermons or general
1 In the version printed in Carmina Burana (CLXXII) he offers himself to his patron as a
scribe. The stanzas are omitted in the MS. used by Wright.
2 Wright, No. 18. The title Goltas de suo Infortunio has apparently been supplied by the
editor.
3 Wright, No. 16.
4 Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Nationale (Paris, 1891), X XIX (2),
272 ff.
5 Meyer, No. XIV (see below, p. 44, note) and Wright, No. 22.
The Progenitors of Golvas 41
Jeremiads against moral corruption.! So far as they are concerned
Golias might be an Episcopus or Pontifex without reproach. A
larger class, including the Apocalypsis Goliae, ? are satires upon the
corruption of the clergy, the papacy, the monks. There is scandal
enough in these, but it does not redound upon the head of their sup-
posed author. Golias is here the apostle of decency or at least the
scourge of vice, and the odium of gulosity is transferred from himself
to the objects of his wrath. In point of fact, however, these pieces
are but characteristic specimens of Mediaeval anti-clerical satire as it
flourished in England in the thirteenth century, and on the Continent
long before. Their “I’’ is merely the impersonal spokesman of such
literature generally. Exception may be made of the Jfetamorphosvs
Goliae, * a paganizing allegory of university life, with a breezy de-
nunciation of the monks who are encroaching on it. This embodies
a specifically goliardic point of view and so may be appropriately
converted into an utterance of the archgoliard himself in his func-
tion of Magister.
The Golias of the poems is, then, not only a myth, but a singu-
larly Protean one, a fiction compounded of many simples. It is in-
teresting to observe the efforts which have been made to give it a
more concrete definition. The story begins with Giraldus Cambren-
sis,‘ who writes as if he knew Golias in the flesh. He is inveighing
against the scandal of anti-Papal versifying, which had evidently
become common in his time. After quoting two anonymous epi-
grams he pounces upon Golias and proceeds.to assail him in his most
vulnerable point, the connotation of his name: “‘quz Golzas [lege Gu-
lias?] melius quia gulae et crapulae per omnia deditus dici potuit.”
He is “‘litteratus tamen affatim, sed nec bene morigeratus, nec bonis
disciplinis informatus.” He writes in metre or rhythm “non minus
umpudenter quam imprudenter.” Giraldus now quotes as a specimen
of his work eight stanzas of a satire against the Pope (Wright, No. 4)
and finally, as a proper epitaph, spoken “ez cordis abundantia,” two
from the Confessio, including the Meum est propositum in taberna
1 E.g. Wright, No. 8, Praedicatio Goliae and No. 10, Praedicatio Goliae ad Terrorem
Omnium.
2 Wright, No. 1. 3 Wright, No. 2.
‘ Speculum Ecclesiae, quoted by Wright, pp. xxxvii-xxxix.
42 The Progemitors of Golias
mori, the beginning of a passage which, detached from its context,
became the most famous drinking song of the Middle Ages.
Giraldus’s description is evidently an Abbildung, colored by indig-
nation, from these two poems and perhaps these alone. His Golias is,
correspondingly, a combination of scurrilous satirist and impudent
avower of fleshly sins. The modern commentators are not content
with this. Gabrielli’ calls Golias a “‘contraposto al Pontifice di
Roma.”’ Straccali? says that the name is that of an “essere imagi-
nario e simbolico nel quale I’ Associazzione det Vaganti riconobbe 1
proprio capo ideale.”” Chambers,®? more comprehensively but less
logically, writes that the “Goliards were especially satirists of the
hypocrisy, cupidity, and evil living of those in high places, for whom
they conceived a grotesque expression in Bishop Golias, a type of
materialistic prelate in whose name they wrote and whose puert or
clerict they declared themselves to be.”’ These statements embrace
the idea of the mock ecclesiastic and of the head of the “‘famzlia
Golivae.”’ Even so they are not sufficiently inclusive, for they fail to
suggest the humorous réle and personality of the mendicant Golias
who describes his plight in the Dives eram, the work which next to
the Confessio bears the strongest accent of genius and individuality.
It is time to abandon the attempts to supply a formula, even the.
most flexible, for a conception which is really but the happy accident
of a series of literary ascriptions and to examine more closely the pro-
cess under which the conception took shape, and the basis on which
the ascriptions themselves were made.
We have to do, first of all, with the development of certain literary
traits of personality and attitude which manifest themselves in the
Golias poems but have their origins quite independently, appearing
in works which antedate the earliest Golias ascription by many
years. These traits are essentially a product of the conditions and
tradition of Latin minstrelsy.
It has long been recognized that the writers of goliardic verse ful-
filled a function analogous to that of the vernacular minstrel or jon-
1 Annibale Gabrielli, Su la Poesia dei Goltardi, Citta di Castello, 1889, p. 46.
2 A. Straccali, I Goliardi, ovvero I Clerici Vagantes delle Universita Medtevali, Florence,
1880. 3 The Mediaeval Stage, I, 160.
The Progenitors of Golias 43
gleur as purveyors of literary entertainment for the learned and ec-
clesiastical world. It is impossible to generalize about a group so
varied, but some of its members, certainly, abandoning whatever
academic or ecclesiastical ambitions they may once have had, as-
sumed the part of professional entertainers and spent not onl} their
restless youths, but their whole lives in ministering to the lighter
hours of that vast international body of individuals of every variety
of taste and temper to whom the flexible church Latin of the Middle
Ages was a second mother tongue. They often went even further,
divesting themselves of their clerical inheritance and adapting their
talents to the amusement of lay audiences until they became indis-
tinguishable in habit and character from the ordinary minstrel or
jongleur. In so far, however, as they adhered to Latin and sought a
purely ecclesiastical patronage, they represent a distinct line with a
technique and attitude which is quite their own. Placed, as they
were, in the position of dependents on a household or institution, yet
sharing with their masters an academic training which set them
above the multitude, partaking of the quality of domestic fool on the
one hand and of learned laureate on the other, they have as stock in
trade a combination of extravagant flattery, graceless almsbegging,
and the affectation of intellectual superiority. Under special privi-
lege of indulgence they satirize individuals and classes, at once flaunt
and deprecate their waywardness of life, and revelling in impudence,
proceed even to the mocking of those solemnities which are the pro-
fession of their patrons and have perhaps been their own. All this in
the name of entertainment pure and simple. The spirit of reform is
something different, though the two elements may and do become
interfused.
The tradition of the Latin minstrel and joculator, as distinct from
that of the ecclesiastical satirist, is undoubtedly a very old one. It is
perhaps, as Reich and Winterfeld maintain, a legacy from ancient
Rome. We know that from the ninth century the church was active
In its denunciation of various forms of clerical profanity and it is rea-
sonable to suppose that literary activity in Latin, essentially identi-
cal with the goliardic movement with which we are familiar, flour-
ished continuously throughout the Middle Ages. Before the twelfth
44 The Progenitors of Golias
century, however, the record of such activity is fragmentary and the
movement itself comparatively ill-defined. The earliest recoverable
example of a fully developed type of goliardic minstrel manifesting in
his work some such combination of characteristics as I have de-
scribed is Hugo of Orleans, called Primas, who reached his maturity
in the generation of Abelard. This figure is of great importance for
the present study. Whatever predecessors he may have had, it seems
entirely probable that he was the first individual whose genius fully
grasped the literary possibilities of his function and put upon a
ragged art the stamp of an enduring comic idea. In a more direct
way, too, he is one of the progenitors of Golias, for the Dives eram is
his work and the type of comic personality represented by it is ap-
parently his creation.
The name Primas has long been a familiar and tantalizing one to
students of goliardic poetry. He has passed through literary history
like an tgnis fatuus, bobbing up continually and as often eluding the
attempt to give him a local habitation, a canon, and a date. That he
has at last been fixed we owe to the discovery in 1907 by Wilhelm
Meyer of an Oxford manuscript containing a collection of 23 poems
in quantitative and accentual meters, some already known to schol-
ars, others new, but all manifestly the work of a single hand and re-
vealing by explicit allusions the circumstances and personality of
their author.' In the light of this material, the hints about Primas in
the chronicles and elsewhere take on new meaning and the story of
his career becomes unexpectedly complete. He was evidently at one
time a teacher of rhetoric and the art of versifying at Orléans; he
flourished early in the twelfth century. By the time we see him in
Meyer’s collection he is already verging on old age and has become a
semi-professional minstrel of the clergy, a passing favorite in certain
quarters, receiving gifts and entertainment in return for learned buf-
foonery. His poems are mostly occasional and they invariably con-
tain requests for benefactions. It is quite clear that he passed from
one ecclesiastical foundation to another; for we hear of his entertain-
ment among the monks and canons of Reims, Amiens, Sens, Beau-
1 “Die Oxforder Gedichte des Primas (des Magister Hugo von Orleans),’ Nachrichten
von d. Kgl. Gesells. d. Wissensch. su Gottingen, phil.-hist. K1., 1907, pp. 75 ff.
The Progenitors of Golias 45
vais. He also appears from time to time as a protégé of individual
ecclesiastics of higher rank.
Though he can on occasions compose a dignified hexameter narra-
tive, graced with the vicious arts of the rhetorical style, on the apo-
cryphal visit of Ulysses to Tiresias at Thebes,! or put into the mouth
of a Greek leader a Horatian meditation on the fall of Troy,? the
latter evidently designed for recitation at the conclusion of a ban-
quet, his muse is, in general, contemporary and intensely personal,
and his verse turns largely on the poles of flattery and abuse. Thus in
the sixteenth poem in Meyer’s collection, written in a mixture of
French and Latin, he begins with a venomous assault on the head of
the clerical community at Beauvais, from whom he has recently re-
ceived shabby entertainment. The point of the attack is that the
clerics of Beauvais, in electing a bishop, have chosen not one of their
own number but a rank outsider. Upon this wretch the poet, with
avowed animus but genuine humor, looses the shafts of his invective.
The new bishop has made a good bid for the election by show of holi-
ness and has quite pulled the wool over the eyes of the simple canons.
Primas himself is not so easily deceived. “When I saw him,” he
says, ““methought I beheld a great devil,” and he goes on to predict a
swift and shocking change as the bishop throws off his hypocritical
mask. “Pallid and lean as he is now, in two years he will be fat and
gross. His teeth will clash over six monstrous fish. He will fill him-
self with wine and be carried to his bed dead-drunk. He will slip off to
the village to indulge in meat eating and worse during Lent. Then, O
Beauvais, your folly will be manifest when the tyranny, incontinence,
avarice, ignorance of your leader begin to show themselves. Take
warning and when you next elect choose a good fellow from your own
ranks.” |
Having thus discharged his poison against a stingy patron Primas
turns to Sens, where he was formerly maintained in comfort. “You,”
he says, “have done the right thing in electing one of yourselves.
Behold, what entertainment I received! Two servants behind my
chair, no hairy squabbling fellow but smooth and gentle boys. Your
bishop is a gracious man. He has given me a horse — a good goer —
1 Meyer, No. X. 2 Meyer, No. IX.
46 The Progenitors of Golias
fat and young. Now won’t you provide me with his hay. Ill sing
you & song so pious, so sweet, that pity will distil from your eyes. As
it is, here in Beauvais, I’ve had to pawn both saddle and bridle. It’s
not the manners of my country to give a man a breakfast and let his
nag want food all night. A present for my journey, and glory, grace
and all good things be yours in saecula saeculorum!”’
The eighteenth poem, in accentual trochaic couplets, opens with
the praise of Amiens, its distinguished citizens, its honest clergy, the
fullness of whose piety has recently been shown. Coming among
them poor and naked, the victim of sharpers at the gaming table,
Primas has been sent away with a full purse. From Amiens he turns
to the mother chapter, Reims, to congratulate her on so fair an off-
spring. Reims is elder and enjoys the greater dignity. Foremost
among her great men is Albericus. He teaches the true doctrine —
not the arts of Capella, no pagan rhetoric of Priscian, neither Plato
nor Timaeus, but one God and the sacraments of Christ. Frederick,
Adelard, Langobardus, and the generous youth Otto are his worthy
colleagues. There is but one black sheep in so fair a flock, a wretch
branded with the mark of crime. How can you who listen to Jesus
Christ pay attention to this thief? The scar on his throat is a symbol
of gluttony. He has been scorched once. He may be scorched again.
Let him keep silent or depart. Otherwise, he may find himself
thrown upon the floor.
Aut discedat aut taceto,
vel iactetur in tapeto.
These two pieces may serve as examples of Primas’s method and
as indications of his minstrel way of life. His comic genius is best
seen in the poems in which he mingles his spleen with humorous self-
portraiture, displaying his gracelessness and narrating his misadven-
tures with a racy frankness and mock pathos which reminds one irre-
sistibly of Falstaff. There is, for example, a witty little narrative ! in
rhyming elegiacs of his entertainment at the house of a pretended
friend — a hypocritical rascal who, after welcoming him with flat-
tery and plying him with food and drink, took advantage of his post-
1 Meyer, No. I.
The Progenitors of Golias 47
prandial dullness to fleece him at the gaming table. The concluding
verses ruefully describe the depletion of his purse. Swelling at first
like the paunch of a glutton after a banquet and giving forth a merry
clink, the poor creature loses, at length, its good rotundity and falls
upon a melancholy silence. There is also the more celebrated mantle-
poem,’ in which Primas takes witty revenge upon a bishop who has
had the meanness to present him with a cloak from which the fur
lining has been removed. He represents himself as appearing in the
street with the wretched thing about him. “Is that coat yours?”
says a passer-by. ‘“‘Mine,”’ replies the poet, ashamed. “‘ Whoever
gave it, gave you your death of cold.” Then he addresses the coat
itself. “Miserable mantle, lean and unprotected. Keep out if you
can old Boreas and the fury of the storm.” Finally the garment
itself replies:
**Fur nor fleece have I none; I’m thin and threadbare and ragged.
The wind, through a thousand holes, will whistle and strike like a javelin.
Go buy a coat, my poor Primas, I’m quite unable to aid you;
For, well-a-day! I am Jacob the bald, not Esau the hairy.”
We now have the proper setting, personality and circumstance for
the Dives eram,? which ranks as Primas’s most original and genial
work. The poet, now become old and feeble, tells how he was turned
out of the comfortable berth which the chapter had obtained for him
as a minor officer in their almshouse, because he had championed the
cause of a disobedient inmate and opposed his expulsion by the Ca-
pellanus. He appeals to the canons for reinstatement and abuses the
Capellanus very scurrilously. The piece bears witness not only to the
satirical and humorous talent of the poet, but also to a touch of hu-
man sympathy beneath the motley. I will present a few lines as a
sample of Hugo’s style:
Dives eram et dilectus
inter pares preelectus:
modo curvat me senectus
Et etate sum confectus.
Unde vilis et neglectus
a deiectis sum deiectus,
} Meyer, No. II. 2 Meyer, No. XXIII.
48 The Progenitors of Golias
quibus rauce sonat pectus
mensa gravis, pauper lectus,
quis nec amor nec affectus
sed horrendus est aspectus.
Primas now turns to scold the Capellanus, that ancient specimen of
faithlessness and greed, who has barbarously laid hands upon him:
Homo mendax atque vanus
infidelis et profanus
plus avarus quam Romanus
me deiecit capellanus
veteranum veteranus
et iniecit in me manus
dignus dici Dacianus.
So the piece rattles on loquaciously fluctuating between the notes of
indignation and self pity. “Now,” says Primas, “I bear the weight
of poverty. My acre, my estate, my home is the wide world, wherein
I wander forlorn. Where be now my gibes and gambols, my flashes of
merriment that were wont to set the table in a roar? I beg my bread
in shame. Whither shall I turn if not to the clergy, nourished as I
was at the Pierian spring, educated at the feet of Homer.”
Paupertatis fero pondus;
meus ager, meus fundus,
domus mea totus mundus,
quem pererro vagabu..dus.
Quondam felix et fecundus,
et facetus et facundus,
movens locos et iocundus,
quondam primus, nunc secundus
victum quero verecur.” .
Verecundus victum quero.
sum mendicus. Ubi vero
victum queram nisi clero,
enutritus in Piero,
eruditus sub Homero?
After a hundred lines of such ejaculation the poet finally becomes
sufficiently composed to give a coherent account of the incident
which brought him low. A poor lame brother, a spirit kindred, evi-
dently, with his own, had violated some petty rule of the hospice and
The Progenitors of Golias 49
been cast forth unceremoniously into the mire. The poet has rushed
impulsively to his assistance and become involved with him in a
common fate:
Provolutus est in luto
frater pede preacuto,
quem clamantem dum adiuto
et putabam satis tuto,
fui comes provoluto
et pollutus cum polluto.
Poor Primas thus found himself alone with the battalions of au-
thority ranged against him. Everybody stood up for the chaplain,
the Jebusites for the Jebusite, the Pharisees for the Pharisee and for
himself nobody but God. “How could I have helped it,” he goes on,
“how could I have foreseen the end? Beholding such an act of injus-
tice, — this rascally corrupter of maid, wife, and widow visiting his
spleen on a poor lame beggar while he in his distress called out from
the gateway for a friend and a deliverer, and lay there unpitied and
alone, covered with mud and uncertain whether that maimed foot of
his should carry him down the naked shingles of the world! — I chal-
lenged the disgraceful act. But as I called out ‘malefactor,’ I found
myself giving an unexpected leap into the air and here I am.”
Such, then, is Hugo of Orleans, professional mendicant and jester,
indeed, but a genuine humorist withal, in whose tattered Latin
rhymes we seem to catch the very soul of comedy, the vivid embodi-
ment of a unique personality, ridiculous, disreputable, appealing.
His contemporary fame and enduring popularity are well attested.
The most authentic notice of him comes from the Chronicle of Rich-
ard of Poitiers,! where, | under the year 1142, it is written: “‘At this
time there lived in Paris a certain scholastic, Hugo by name, called
Primas by his associates, of mean stature, twisted in countenance.
He was versed in secular learning from his youth, and the fame of his
wit spread through many regions. He was quick and ready in com-
position, as appears in the verses he wrote on a poor mantle given
him by some bishop, a poem which made all who heard it burst out
laughing.”’
1 Monumenta Historica Germaniae, Scriptores, XXVI, 81; cited by Delisle, Bibliothaque
del’ Ecole des Chartes, XXXI (302-811), and by Meyer, p. 80.
50 The Progenitors of Golras
The date to which Primas is here assigned is accurate. Meyer in-
fers that he was born in the last decade of the eleventh century. The
period of his activity thus antedates the great developmentsof secular
Latin poetry and establishes Hugo’s position as a pioneer in goliardic
tradition.
Returning now to his more specific relation to the problem in
hand, we may note in Primas the absence of some of the essential
elements in the character of the imaginary Golias and at the same
time the presence of suggestions which are further developed in the
later poems. Evidently Primas has nothing of the reformer in his
composition. His invectives are purely personal. Yet in describing
some of the individual ecclesiastics who have injured him, he falls
into a form of utterance which might easily be converted to the pur-
poses of a more general abuse. Witness the account of the greed and
corruption of the newly elected Bishop of Beauvais. On the other
hand, while he is himself evidently addicted to all forms of goliardic
vice and makes no bones of his craving for sensual enjoyments, he
has not constructed his anti-asceticism into a philosophy. Finally, he
is not a mock bishop, nor explicitly the leader of a ribald sect. Yet he
is evidently on the way to becoming both. His title, Primas, origi-
nally referring to his scholastic function and equivalent to Magister,
would naturally, when that function had been forgotten and he
was known only as a poet and a mountebank, be taken as an appro-
priate characterization of his primacy among the Latin versifiers. It
was entirely natural, therefore, that he should ultimately be thought
of as a master of the whole brood of the “‘ribaldz”’ and receive the
more or less official title of “‘Primas Vagorum.” But the term, by a
happy accident, is also an ecclesiastical one, and we accordingly find
the designations ‘‘Episcopus” and “Presbyter”’ attached to his
name in continental manuscripts.!. The general idea of a burlesque
prelate was, of course, a familiar enough one to the Middle Ages
from the institution of the Boy Bishop; and the associations of the
name Primas would appear to prepare the way for the connection of
1 The Dialogus inter Aquam et Vinum, which appears in Wright (No. 22) among the
poems ascribed to Golias, is headed Versus Primatis presbyteri in a Venetian MS. See
Grimm, op. cit., p. 78, note 29.
wv
The Progenitors of Golias 51
such a fictitious personage with the authorship of goliardic verse. We
know that such an association was established on the Continent as
early as the first decade of the thirteenth century. Thus a certain
Surianus, minstrel at the court of the Archbishop of Eberhard IT of
Salzburg, styles himself in a burlesque dispensation of the year 1209
“‘praesul et archiprimas vagorum scolarium,’’ and in an account
book of Bishop Wolfger of Passau (1203-4) payments are recorded
“curdam Ebberardinorum episcopo et cuidam alit mimo”’ and on an-
other occasion “‘domino episcopo.”’! It was, perhaps, by that time a
favorite trick of the clerical joculator to masquerade as a high func-
tionary of the church and to think of himself as a reincarnation of the
original Primas.
It required, however, the intervention of a second genius in this
kind to enrich the content of the goliardic idea and further to estab-
lish the groundwork of the myth of Golias. Such a genius is to be
found in the memorable Archpoet of Cologne, who flourished a gen-
eration later than Primas at the Archiepiscopal Court of Reinald of
Dassel, Chancellor of the Empire under Frederick Barbarossa. The
main facts regarding the Archpoet have been available since Jacob
Grimm’s publication in 1843 of a Géttingen manuscript which con-
tains a trustworthy though incomplete collection of his poems.? His
significance in the history of Latin literature can be understood only
by comparison with his predecessor of Orleans.
Less erudite than Primas, he yet pleads like him the benefit of
clergy, and is careful to distinguish himself from the vulgar histriones
and balatrones who are his rivals. His poems are all addressed to a
clerkly audience and they are manifestly designed for recitation;
they possess the same fullness of personal reference, flattery, satire,
complaints of poverty and sickness, requests for benefactions. Like
Primas, too, the Archpoet is a vagrant, though he is more fortunate
1 Franzen, ‘Zur Vagantendichtung,’ Neophilologus, V (1920), 62-68. Ebberardinus is a
synonym for goliardus, perhaps, as Franzen suggests, because of the patronage of such min-
strels by Bishop Eberhard.
2 “*Gedichte des Mittelalters auf kénig Friedrich I. den Stauffer,” Abhandlungen der kgl.
Akad. d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 1848, p. 148 f.; republished in Kleinere Schriften III, 1 ff. Sub-
sequent discussions of the Archpoet are numerous: e. g., N. Spiegel, Due Vaganten und thr
Orden, Speyer, 1892; B. Schmeidler, Die Gedichte des Archpoeta, 1911; M. Manitius, Die
Gedichte des Archpoeta (Miinchener Texte, Heft 6), 1918; Franzen, loc. cit. note 28, etc.
52 The Progenitors of Golras
than the other in having a point de repére in a great and indulgent
noble of the church. The fact that he was given the task of celebrat-
ing the martial deeds of the Chancellor and of Frederick himself on
his Italian expedition, together with his title of Archpoet, suggests
that he was a kind of poet laureate of the imperial and archiepiscopal
society of his time. He fills the office, however, without dignity, and
it is evident that what was expected of him is primarily entertain-
ment. |
His direct indebtedness to Primas is evident on every hand. In
the third poem in Grimm’s manuscript the singer calls the bishop’s
attention to his shabby coat, says that he knows by his pulse that
one foot is already in the grave, and winds up with the usual appeal
for a gift. The piece was inspired by Hugo’s satire on his furless
mantle already cited. Elsewhere he describes himself as racked with
a continuous cough, prematurely bald, and unable to continue his
wonted merriment. The younger poet evidently patterned his liter-
ary activity after that of the already famous Hugo and borrowed
from him his title and the primary motives of his art. If, however,
the Archpoet exhibits Primas’s penchant for recounting his misad-
ventures and if he catches, as he does, something of the earlier min-
strels’ touch of extravagant absurdity which elevates beggary to the
level of comic art, he does so with a difference. He lacks, for one
thing, the vein of personal spitefulness which animates some of the
best of Hugo’s work, and he is not given in the same degree to the
dramatic elaboration of concrete episodes. Thus he represents him-
self, quite in Hugo’s vein, as having been fleeced by the physicians of
Bologna whither he repaired for a cure and also, it would appear, for
study, but instead of describing the details, he touches quickly upon
the incident, contenting himself with a pun upon the “medicus”
which he had hoped to be and the “mendicus”’ which he became.
His wit, on the other hand, is even more brilliant, and he displays
qualities of comic invention which more than replace the genial real-
ism of his predecessor. This is well illustrated in Poem III, written
in the meter of Hugo’s Dives eram et dilectus and somewhat simi-
lar in theme and tone. The opening lines describe a great festal
gathering at Vienna. Amid the throngs of nobles and their hangers-
The Progenitors of Golias 53
on, including all manner of actors and minstrels, each expecting a
donation, comes the Archpoet, skulking. He has misbehaved and is
out of favor. He compares himself to Jonah who, having fled from
the word of the Lord, was punished in the belly of the whale. This
Jonah has been in the durance of disfavor long enough. He asks
Reinald to pity him, as the Lord did his prophet, and bid the monster
spit him forth. He will go cheerfully to Nineveh fearless of swords
and arrows. His way of life he will reform altogether. He will be-
come as sanctified as the prophets and will sing for his patron songs
of unbelievable excellence. Reinald shall be the palm and he the
vine.
These verses manifest the same garrulous facility as the similar
piece of Hugo’s but there is in the comic self-portraiture a new accent
of personality. Frank sensualist as Primas shows himself to be, in the
narrative, for example, of his entertainment by the harlot Flora,’ he
never, as we have seen, poses as a mock repentant sinner. This ap-
pears to be the Archpoet’s special contribution. It is another Fal-
staffian characteristic, appearing in poem after poem of our bard, and
reaching its culmination in the celebrated Confessio, which I have
already numbered among the suppositious works of Golias. This
poem, though it is not in Grimm’s Gottingen MS., is certainly his.?
The allusions to Padua, whither the poet has accompanied his mas-
ters on Frederick’s Italian Campaign, and to the Electus Coloniae,
i. e., the bishop of Cologne, already appointed but not installed until
his return to Germany in 1165, and the similarities to the Archpoet’s
other work, put this beyond the slightest question. Of the merits of
this extraordinary composition, its passionate and defiant energy,
the resonance of its rhythms, its bold and brilliant phraseology, I
need not speak. Attention may, however, be called to one passage
which appears to have been interpolated from another poem (No.
IV), of the Archpoet, where it fits the context more appropriately. In
this fourth poem the author begs indulgence from Reinald for not
having gone about the task of composing a work on the deeds of
1 Meyer, Nos. 6 and 7.
2 He prints it as No. X of his collection, from a Brussels (formerly Stalbo) MS., which con-
tains this and two other poems of the Archpoet.
54 The Progenitors of Golias
Frederick, as he had been commanded to do. His excuse is that he
cannot write to order against time. As the spirit of prophecy some-
times departed from Elijah, so the spirit of poetry is not always at-
tendant upon him. Sometimes he can make a thousand verses stans
pede in uno, and will yield to no one. Then again his brain seems to
go to sleep and the muse slips from his clutches. Some bards seek
solitude to hammer out their inspirations, relying on abstinence and
labor. With him it is all otherwise. Then come the verses, twenty in
all, repeated in the Confessto as an elaboration of the articling of
his sins, already sufficiently complete, under the head of drunken-
ness. I quote two stanzas:
Tales versus facio, quale vinum bibo;
nil possum incipere nisi sumpto cibo;
nichil valent penitus que ielunus scribo;
Nasonem per calices carmine preibo.
Mihi nunquam spiritus poetrie datur
nisi prius fuerit venter bene satur;
dum in arce cerebri Bachus dominatur
in me Phebus inruit et miranda fatur.
In these lines and in the Confessio at large the poet has uttered
the literary manifesto of the goliards, raising a banner to which the
whole crew of decency-defying rhymers of the later twelfth and
thirteenth centuries might flock. Frowned upon by long-faced Puri-
tans but everywhere welcomed by the easy-going, they have learned
to make virtues of their defects, turning into material for laughter the
opprobrium which is cast upon them. The tendency toward such an
inversion is inherent in the mediaeval situation. Actually to formu-
late it required, I think,some genius. One hesitates to say that Archi-
poeta was the first to do so, but in view of his early date and his
strongly marked originality this seems at least probable. At any rate
his Confessio ranks as the leading document in the goliardic tradi-
tion, and in it the Archpoet offers himself as a hero, even more au-
thentic than Primas of the literary movement and the moral atti-
tude. He stands ready, in the company of his predecessor, to transfer
his title, with true mediaeval humility, to Bishop Golias or whatever
other commanding name, real or fictitious, may justly claim it.
/
/
The Progenitors of Golias 7 55
The process of the transfer is not difficult to explain. The name of
the Philistine giant ! had long been used as a term of reproach for the
enemies of decency and order in the church. Professor Manly ? has
supplied us with the basis for such an application in the following
passage from a sermon attributed to St Augustine and embodied in
the ritual:
Stabant filii Israel contra adversarios quadraginta diebus. Quadraginta
dies, propter quatuor tempora, et quatuor partes orbis terrae, vitam prae-
sentem significant, in qua contra Goliath, vel exercitum eius, id est, contra
diabolum et angelos eius, Christianorum populus pugnare non desinit.
Nec tamen vincere posset, nisi verus David Christus cum baculo, id est,
cum crucis mysterio descendisset.
It was doubtless in allusion to this symbol that St Bernard
dubbed his opponent, Abelard, Goliath, and Abelard’s fellow-heretic,
Arnold of Brescia, Goliath’s armor bearer.? The term familia Goliae
applied to “‘clerict ribaldi”’ first appears in an ecclesiastical statute
attributed to Walter of Sens‘ (887-923), where the expression is
said to be in common use.
Such, then, were the connotations of “Golias” and his “familia”
before the rise of the two great goliardic personalities in Hugo and
the Archpoet. His elaboration into a personage and the ascription to
him of a canon of works, originally set in another frame, is charac-
teristic enough of mediaeval fancy. Let us consider, then, first, the
case of the Confessio. The title in the Stalbo manuscript used by
Grimm, which is the earliest and represents the work most nearly
in its original form, is Confessio Poetae. In Harlevan 2851 it is Gu-
liardus de Vitae Suae Mutatione. Finally, in Harlevan 978, in Cotton
Vespasitan A XIX, and in the manuscript of Queen Christina it is
1 J have assumed throughout this discussion the original identity of Golias and Goliath.
This was the opinion of Giesebrecht, Hubatch, and Straccali. Professor Manly’s contribution
cited in the next note appears to put it on a solid basis. The term goliardus may still, for all
I can see, be of independent derivation, whether its first use is prior or subsequent to the
phrase “‘ familia Goliae.”’
2 “Familia Goliae,’’ Modern Philology, V (1907-08), 201 ff.
3 First noted by Btdinger in Sttzungsberichte d. Katserl. Akad. d. Wiss. (Wien, 18654),
XIII, 316. See also Gaston Paris, Bibliothéque de U Ecole des Chartes, 1889, p. 258 ff.
¢ For a full discussion of this document with arguments for its genuineness, see J. W.
Thompson, “The Origin of the Word Goltardi,”” Studies in Philology, XX (1921), 83 ff.
56 The Progenitors of Golias
Confesstio Goliae. We may conjecture as a possible intermediate
step Confessio Goliardi, though I have noted no such rubric among
the eleven recorded manuscripts. The most natural assumption is
that the transfer to Golias was first made in the spirit of satire.
Some copyist, coming to the poem in the mood of Giraldus Cam-
brensis, may well have felt under obligation to stigmatize with re-
proach a scandalous composition which at once interested him and
violated his sense of decency. The epithet Golias lay ready to his
hand. If the writer was a manifests cion of the familia Goliae, why
should he not be Golias himself? Having attached the name to
the poem, he hed created by a stroke of the pen the conception of a
literary personality, an avowed champion and monstrous symbol of
dicing, gluttony, and lust. The extension of the name to kindred
pieces, whether of the Archpoet himself or of Hugo or of other go-
liards who imitated them, would naturally follow. We do not now
know how far the process went. The crowning idea that Golias was
a bishop or a pope was presumably first suggested by the title Primas.
Perhaps, indeed, this association anticipated the ascription of the
Confessio, since Primas, on the Continent, undoubtedly took pre-
cedence as a type-figure. If, then, Golias was already thought of
as a burlesque prelate, the ascription to him of the Confessio would
have deftly converted the poem into an ecclesiastical utterance, a
ready-made representation, the most scathing yet devised, of the
scandal of the clergy. In any case, the identification of Primas with
Golias would soon assimilate the other (the more so since Primas re-
peatedly names himself in the texts) and would be taken up with
enthusiasm by the goliards themselves. The newly-installed bishop,
already a Primas among vagrants, would be welcomed as a model
patron, a generous and indulgent ecclesiastic such as the heart would
wish but seldom finds, minstrel still beneath the vestments and
knowing like themselves the joys and pains of lyric mendicancy.
The family of Golias, rejoicing in a leader elevated from their own
ranks, would thus take on new meaning and its members be bound
by closer ties.
I have suggested that the ascriptions may have extended to a con-
siderable number of the characteristic works of Hugo and the Arch-
— - — ee ~ 2 ne, of
The Progenitors of Golias 57
poet, with a corresponding widening of the idea. We know that it did
to one authentic poem of Primas besides the Dives eram, the univer-
sally current epigram “In cratere meo” which combines a widely
felt resentment at the stinginess of the patron-class with an almost
religious abhorrence of enfeebled drink.! The popularity of these
works prompted, in turn, the addition to the Golias canon of such a
piece as the Goliae in Raptorem suae Bursae (i. e., Guleardz de pilleo
furato, Wright, No. 16), which is not by Hugo, as the metre shows,
but is exactly in his vein, and the same may be said of the Golvae
Dialogus inter Aquam et Vinum,? a dramatic elaboration of the idea
embodied in the epigram.
The direct contribution of the Archpoet is, so far as we know,
limited to the Confessio. His own Apocalypsis, however, is perhaps
accountable for the idea of the quite distinct Apocalypsts Goltae,
and for the framework of allegory and vision in the Metamorphosis
Goliae and the Goliae Dialogus inter Aquam et Vinum, while his metre
became the almost universal one for the entire canon, including the
didactic and satirical works and the Goliae in Raptorem, which owes
its substance to Hugo.
We seem, then, to have arrived by various channels at the object
of our search. The details are of course conjectural and other factors
than the ones mentioned, as, for instance, the mediaeval spirit of
parody, doubtless entered in. But the general process by which the
fiction of Golias took form must have been about what I have de-
scribed. Certainly it is to Hugo of Orleans and the Archpoet of
Cologne that Golias primarily owes his substance, for without them
he would be but the shadow of a name — the mere embodiment of a
churlish reproach against freedom and the lust of life. In his authen-
tic essence he is created in the composite image of two kindred spirits
of a purer fire. French and German blood boils together (harmoni-
ously enough) within his veins. But his future lay with England, for
1 This piece, as noted above, is actually ascribed to Primas in one continental MS. The
scribal tendency was naturally toward assigning to Primas everything which at all resembled
his authentic work, and to Golias everything that had been attached to Primas.
2 Meyer, No. XIV. The epigram does not say explicitly that the wine was a gift, but it
is so understood by Salimbene who quotes it as a work of Primas with the superscription “ Alia
sice datum futt siht vinum nimis limphatum,” Meyer, p. 151.
58 The Progenitors of Golias
his name seldom occurs in continental manuscripts, where Primas
and the Archpoet continue to rule in their own right, and the ma-
jority of the utterances subsequently put in his mouth are apparently
of English authorship. That these are, on the whole, mere expres-
sions of the satiric and even of the ascetic spirit and make not even
the pretence of perpetuating the personality is perhaps an evidence
of the English temper and its imperfect assimilation of a joke. One
would like to think, however, that the spirit of gaiety in Walter Map
had something to do with the promulgation of the jest. In any case,
there were not lacking, even in Britain, merry souls who could dance
to the tune which had been set for them abroad. Witness the already
mentioned Pauline epistle of an English Goliard to the discipuli
Golvae that are in France. Witness, too, the more distant but still
quite distinguishable echoes of goliardic strains in the vernacular
poetry of Dunbar and Skelton.
University or MICHIGAN.
TWO MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SCHOOL OF
ST DENIS
ALBERT M. FRIEND, Jr.
ELISLE in 1886 described MS. 1141 of the fonds latin in
the Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, under the title, “‘ Frag-
ment de sacramentaire dont l’origine est indéterminée.” 1 In 1924
Leroquais, the latest writer to deal with this manuscript, says:
**No indication permits us to specify the church for which this
manuscript was executed; the arguments, be they taken from its
* decoration or from the library to which formerly it belonged, appear
inconclusive; in any case they seem insufficient to justify an attri-
bution.” ? Yet the manuscript in question is one of the most richly
decorated of the volumes which have come down to us from the
Carolingian period. The style of the ornamentation is precise and
unmistakable, the number of full-page pictures unusual, particu-
larly when we take into account that the manuscript is a fragment
of ten folios. With all this wealth of artistic evidence it seems im-
possible that this sacramentary should still remain in the limbo of
the works of art whose origin is not determined.
The very first of its full-page pictures ought to give at once a clue
to the origin of the manuscript (Fig. 1). In the centre of the illus-
tration stands a young man in the dress of a Carolingian prince over
whose head the Hand of God, reaching down from the clouds, holds
a jewelled crown. Accompanying the prince at this divine corona-
tion-ceremony and seeming to lend their sanction to the act are two
archbishops, one on either side, each robed in full regalia including
the pallium. Under the scene filling out the page to the border is a
blank, gold-edged, purple panel still lacking the inscription in
1 L. Delisle, ‘Mémoire sur d’Anciens Sacramentaires,’’ Mémoires de [ Académie des In-
scriptions et Belles-Lettres, XXXII (1886), 146.
2 Abbé V. Leroquais, Les Sacramentaires et les Missels Manuscrits des Bibliothéques Pu-
bliques de France (Paris, 1924), I, 36.
[Professor Friend has failed to add, doubtless because the fact is conspicuous in his plates,
that the script of 34S. 1141 is similar in its general characteristics to that of MS. 2292. A
future number of Speculum will contain two facsimiles of a famous book of St Denis, the
so-called Second Bible of Charles the Bald. All these specimens may well be the products
of the same scriptorium. — E. K. R.] .
59
60 Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis
golden letters which would have made the picture intelligible and
this article superfluous.! Of course the page illustrates some coro-
nation, either contemporary or past. But what coronation-ceremony
in Carolingian history is here depicted or referred to, no writer has
had the temerity to guess. Janitschek describes the miniature as a
“*Frankish prince between two priest-monks.” 2? Weber speaks of
“‘a prince . . . [and] at his side two ecclesiastical dignitaries with
the pallium.”* Leroquais calls the figures “‘an emperor between
two ecclesiastics.” 4 Not much, evidently, has been gained from
the study of the picture by itself. But if, by other means, the
manuscript which contains it can be dated and placed with some ~
degree of accuracy, the identification of the coronation scene may
become inevitable and thus, in turn, confirm the attribution of
the manuscript.
Fortunately it is possible to get some light on the sacramentary
quite aside from our picture. JS. 1141 is not an isolated specimen
of its style but an important member of a group of manuscripts.
Janitschek, the first to separate the illuminated manuscripts of
the Carolingian period into schools, assigned it to his “‘School
of Corbie” whose centre was in the north of France.’ At the same
time he noticed that, of all the manuscripts included in the
so-called School of Corbie, this sacramentary allied itself most
powerfully with another, the Sacramentary of Nonantola (Bibl.
Nat., MS. lat. 2292). The striking similarities in ornament between
these two manuscripts put their relationship beyond doubt. Delisle
had already pointed out that the decoration of the Preface and the
beginning of the Canon in MS. 2292 recalled the style of MS. 1141.°
If we make the comparison ourselves between one of these pages of
MS. 2292, fol. 8r (Fig. 4), and a page of MS. 1141, fol. 7v (Fig. 3),
we see that the leaf border is strikingly similar: the identical treat-
ment and number of lobes in the acanthus leaves, the same fan-
like leaves in the corners, the similar rosettes placed in the middle
1 The EXCELSA VOCE shows through from the other side of the leaf.
2 H. Janitschek, Die Trierer Ada-Handschrift (Leipzig, 1889), p. 102.
3 L. Weber, Einbanddecken, Elfenbeintafeln, Muintaturen, Schriftproben aus Metzer litur-
gischen Handschriften (Metz: N. Houpert, 1913), I, 53.
« Leroquais, op. cit., I, 36. § Janitschek, loc. cit. ® Delisle, op. cit., p. 127.
Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis 61
of each border. Since the sureness and the freedom of the work are
so much the same in both cases that it is impossible to choose be-
tween them, we cannot but conclude that the two manuscripts are
contemporary and were produced in the same scriptorium. There-
fore, for our purposes, the evidence for date and place afforded by
one reacts upon the other.
MS. 2292 is not a fragment as is MS. 1141. Besides the Preface
and the Canon it contains the special masses for the year. The
type of writing and the color of the headings and prayers for these
masses vary according to the importance of the feasts. Thus only
the great feasts of Christ, the Virgin and the chief apostles have
both the title in color and the prayers, or the first lines thereof, in
gold. The next most important masses have the titles in red while
the collect is in green. These include the days after the Nativity
such as St Stephen, St John, the Innocents, and the Epiphany. The
third category has the title of the mass in red and the first line of
the collect also in red. Other masses are written completely in black.
The saints for whom special masses are included in the sacramentary
are, for the most part, those usually to be met with in any Roman
sacramentary. Four names, however, may especially engage our
attention, St Caesarius of Arles, St Maurice, St Martin, and St Denis.
The mass for the first is inserted after that for All Saints. The title
is in red and the collect in black. St Maurice has the same kind
of rubrication. St Martin is distinguished by the use of red for the
first line of the collect as well as for the title. But it is the mass for
St Denis and his companions on fol. 79v which presents the chief
peculiarity of our manuscript (Fig. 5). The title for this mass was
never put in, two blank rulings being reserved for it. Now, the first
line of the collect is written in red uncials and clearly the title, were
it to have been in red also, would have been executed at the same
time with the ink ready to hand. Evidently the rubricator was to
have filled in the blank space with one of the colors we have seen
reserved for saints or feasts of exceptional importance, but for some
reason the title was never inserted. Edmund Bishop, noticing the
exceptional character of this mass among the others, remarks cau-
tiously: ‘‘that [the mass] of St Denis may (just possibly) be of
X
%
62 Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis
some interest in reference to the origin of the MS.” ! It is evident
that the abbey which produced our sacramentary had more than
a general interest in St Denis.”
MS. 2292 did not long stay in the abbey where it was made. On
fol. 6v is an inscription ® which states that John, the Bishop of
Arezzo, gave this sacramentary to the monastery of Nonantola (near
Modena, Italy). John governed the church of Arezzo during the
last quarter of the ninth century. We have, then, to account for
the possession by this Italian prelate of a manuscript admitted by
all to be the product of a North-French scriptorium and a fine speci-
men of the “‘School of Corbie.” In this connection it should be re-
membered that this same John of Arezzo was sent as papal legate
by John VIII to the court of Charles the Bald in 876. The embassy,
of which he was one of the chief members, was received by the king
in the abbey of St Denis, Paris, where Charles was residing during
the celebration of Easter.4 Charles had become the abbot of St
Denis in 867 and since that time it had become his custom to spend
Easter in the monastery.® There can be no doubt of his relation to
this abbey. Only the year before the visit of John, in a diploma
granted during the Easter celebration in the abbey and establishing
certain commemorations for himself and family, he twice proudly
names himself as abbot.®
We must call to mind that, at the same time that Charles the Bald
was abbot of St Denis, he was also the chief patron of the illuminators
and scribes of the so-called School of Corbie. Three of the finest
examples of this school were made specially for him. His psalter
(Bibl. Nat. lat. 1152), his prayer book (Schatzkammer, Munich),
- and his Gospels (Codex Aureus, Staatsbibliothek, Munich), all have
inscriptions which make clear the king’s patronage.’
1 Edmund Bishop, Liturgica Historica (Oxford, 1918), p. 70.
2 [The presence of the names of Sts Maurice and Martin perhaps indicates that this book
descends from one of Tours. — E. K. R.]
3 Delisle, op. cit., p. 128, and Le Cabinet des Manuscrits (Paris, 1874), II, 388.
4 Les Annales de Saint-Bertin et de Saint-Vaast (ed. Abbé C. Dehaisnes, Paris, 1871),
p. 243. 5 Ibid., p. 164, et seq.
¢ M. A. Giry, “‘La Donation de Rueil & |’ Abbaye de Saint-Denis,” Mélanges Julien Havet
(Paris, 1895), pp. 686, 711, 712. 7H. Leclercq, “‘Charles le Chauve (Manuscrits
de),”’ Dictionnaire d’ Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, III, 848 ff.
Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis 63
Summing up the points of evidence which bear on MS. 2292:
(1) it is a member of the group of manuscripts called the School of
Corbie whose special patron was Charles the Bald; (2) Charles was
the abbot of St Denis from 867 till his death in 877; (3) the rubrica-
tion of the mass for St Denis in the sacramentary shows a special
veneration for that saint on the part of the illuminators; (4) the
manuscript was once the property of John of Arezzo who, as papal
legate, was received by Charles in this abbey in 876. We can con-
clude, therefore, that our sacramentary was very likely presented to
the messenger of the pope by King Charles and that it was written
and illuminated in the monastery of St Denis sometime before 876.
The return of John to Italy with his treasure might explain why the
title for the mass of St Denis was never filled in.
The evidence afforded by the Sacramentary of Nonantola can be
applied forthwith to its brother MS. 1141, which contains the coro-
nation picture. It, too, must be a product of the abbey of St Denis
and date before 876. But we do not have to depend upon this bor-
rowed evidence alone to settle the provenience of the coronation
sacramentary. One of the full-page miniatures in the manuscript
itself gives a decisive point for this attribution. At the beginning
of the Canon of the mass (fol. 6v) is a magnificent illuminatlon in
which the initial “‘T” serves as the cross in a representation of the
Crucifixion (Fig. 6). The chief peculiarity of this scene is the at-
tempt on the part of the artist to emphasize the eclipse of the sun
which is supposed to have taken place at the time of the death of
Christ. Lowering clouds descend to obscure the discs containing the
busts of the personifications of the sun and the moon. The bust of
the moon, a veiled female, instead of facing towards the Saviour
in the usual manner, is hurrying to the right and out of the scene.
According to St Dionysius the Areopagite himself, that is to say St
Denis (for the Carolingians had identified the two men), the peculiar
nature of this eclipse, which he claims to have observed while in
Egypt, was ultimately responsible for his conversion to Christianity.
In his description of this phenomenon we read that the moon coming
up from the east obscured the face of the sun for the three hours
during which Christ hung upon the cross and then, instead of pass-
x
64 Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis
ing on to the west, turned back upon its course and returned to the
east. The reversed position of the bust of the moon in our miniature
is the artist’s attempt to show the reversed movement of the moon,
the miraculous feature of the eclipse. The information about this
eclipse at the Crucifixion is contained in a letter supposedly written
by Dionysius to Polycarp of Smyrna and was first made intelligible
to the West in 858 by the translation into Latin made by John the
Scot at the request of Charles the Bald. For the purpose, the Irish
scholar used the famous Greek manuscript of the works of Dionysius
the Areopagite which had been deposited in the monastery of St
Denis by Charles’s father, Louis the Pious.? The most likely artists
to have used the scene of the Crucifixion.to show the exact nature of
the eclipse which was the cause of the conversion of St Denis would
have been those in the monastery of St Denis in Paris. On this
subject and on other points which show that the so-called School
of Corbie was really centred in this abbey, I have written else-
where (Art Studies, I, 67 ff.). There I have tried to show also that
the beginning of this style of manuscript illumination must date
after 867 when Charles the Bald became abbot. Consequently,
from the evidence of its twin, MS. 2292, of the peculiar eclipse in
the miniature of the Crucifixion, and of the beginning of its style
of ornamentation, it becomes apparent that MS. 1141 must have
been written and illuminated in the monastery of St Denis between
the years 867 and 876.
We are now ready to attempt the identification of the coronation-
scene depicted in our sacramentary the date and provenience of
which stand determined. Since there is no doubt that Charles the
Bald was the chief patron of the school of illumination to which the
volume belongs and since the richness of its ornamentation makes it
the most brilliant specimen of this school® we can be quite sure that
this manuscript was made by his order. The coronation-picture can
be identified, then, with some such ceremony in the life of this prince
1 Patrologia Latina, CXXII, 1180. Cf. Max Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Litera-
tur des Mittelalters (Munich, 1911), I, $25 ff.
2 H. Omont, “‘Manuscrit des Oeuvres de S. Denys ]’Aréopagite envoyé de Constantinople
& Louis le Débonnaire en 827,” Revue des Etudes Grecques, XVII (1904), 230 ff.
* Janitschek, op. cit., p. 102.
"
VY goose
:
~ \
.
a %
i) ‘ ~ ‘s .
{€<
f LK. SN ae acta toe
Uh)
Ne
eV VV? «
yy
wy}
“\
«
“i
x8
ruwyu™
yy "4
2 4% “he Fs
‘ BRAD al
“CY
AAA
yyy
c yo
ae Cae r P
$
a
:
>
>
mAkeee oe we er mn te ee
hry
PAC a SCERDYY gS
BO a ee
Fic. 1
MS tat. 1141 BretiorHeQue NATIONALE, Parts. FoLto 2 VERSO
PMSNAW
mF # © wt ba»
c
‘ ‘
* »"
>” ie ee
Pe al) A
2
Fic.
ATIONALE, Paris. Fo.uio 3RrREcTO
MS at. 1141 BrsLiotHEQUE N
eae!
‘
~-
ne i
f
tasee
‘ :
_
=i)
Pan
on
‘ =
~
ee
7
> >
Fic. 3
MS :at. 1141 BrsLiotHEQUE NATIONALE, Paris. Foto 7 VERSO
-
oe
yy
*
<t
%
i* h
: ee
- . bs
Ay be SVE *
J ieé “it
ey fF Ml
.
. i - ®
+*ese
Ne ll
‘ee oe. ~
5m
ONCE
TATION
iB-ET
ie edd x
J
.
ae
ee eeeeeet—(“(i‘iaiaie
Lovers:
‘ ee ew Per
. ° 4 a -
al : a
out 4 oe eee, Os
res 7
‘
« a
XX yor
ff
airy : MOPS
lS Be shN
ies
~
ena
ye
5B
1
Ja
ed
a
fe “be te Sl
ew tte eee
‘3
an
y ame pif.
mm
AE
4
"4 em
; isan ‘ 4 pd ee \ i
eo As gs Fah Ss %
A CF ahi we Oo
(DIP OS PIN PS GIS
rid | Se
ea >». © m eo .e8
“
*~«
4 : ee o*
Fic. 4
MS tat, 2292 BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE, Parts. FoOLio 8RECTO
i aduerfamumamur—< pPRio- JO: ‘oct: JO: pie :
F f os e Far chee sions fa cy 7 mn
oy soe lu adpredtcandam gennbur m a |
‘sceleurhertum fouaredh ignaufer : cribuenobryafi ,
imrexnione proamoreruo profperamundidefprcere ex cnulla—*
aufaduerfi formdare- p SUPER OB- — ed teae
ofaadneqh quamin{corumcuorum dyonfi ( eitaae ¥
hera naralufrecentercef of ferimuf- écuincelanrepraut —
3 bfoluar: acelin aa TS
ss a y
nas f
Pfancbin urpeorum pate siren
h
x >
ot -
ty ,
bd q _
“. ae £3: OL
. » =
me
amp Wee
Qa dr 1
DIE-«. OCT. NATALE SG cALIS TI PA fae |
i
(4uinofeon{preif oenrainfirm : 2
| “eum nofimfericordrre~ pi ha orummuorum ¢
salar”
Fig. 5
MS rat, 2292 BrsLioTHEQUE NATIONALE, Paris. Foto 79 VERSO
or: 1 : edu ’ : ie ea eo
- . > =; 2 ‘es ss PUR! “fF vt ote tt
oll Ji ih Ls z GAGE
is. AG res Weary, fit
ee. : 7 @p0n eee a we
oo 5.2-
= “2
se co
Mo pe is Roum :
Fic. 6 "ey? 5% ck ee e*
MS tat. 1141 BrBsLioTHEQUE NATIONALE, Parts. Fouto 6 VERSO
Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis 65
between the years 867 and 876. History, during this period, records
two coronation-ceremonies in which Charles figures: (1) the imperial
coronation in Rome in 875, and (2) his coronation in Metz as king
of Lorraine in 869.!__ The first of these can hardly have been the in-
spiration for our miniature. The presence in the picture of the two
ecclesiastics of equal rank is not compatible with a ceremony in
which a pope and an emperor are the chief actors. Furthermore, if
we look at the picture we notice that all three persons wear the
nimbus (Fig. 1), that is, they are saints. There are no saints who
could have been thought of as even remotely connected with the
ceremony in Rome in 875 except, just possibly, St Peter and St
Paul, who decidedly are not represented here. In any case the youth-
ful man with the nimbus cannot represent Charles the Bald, who in
875 was no longer young and who had never taken the liberty, even
in the most splendid manuscripts made by his order, to assume the
nimbus.?
We come, then, to the other possibility, that the coronation here
portrayed refers to the ceremony at Metz in 869. Before investigat-
ing this subject it 1s better to see just what points the artist empha-
sizes in his miniature (Fig. 1). First the Hand of God suggests that
the young prince is the elect of God. The archbishops are obviously
approving the coronation by their gestures. The most important
point is the wearing of the nimbus by the three participants in the
depicted ceremony. This can only mean they were dead and
thought of as sanctified persons at the time of the painting. Were
there any circumstances connected with the coronation at Metz
which might have determined this peculiar iconography?
The death of Lothaire IT, King of Lorraine, on August 8, 869,
left the kingdom as a prize to whichever of his two uncles could first
seize and hold it. One of them, Louis the German, was gravely
stricken with illness at the time, while his sons were busy with the
1 E. Diimmler, Geschichte des Ostfrinkischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1887), II, $97-S98 and
280-284.
2 Cf. his portraits in his Psalter (Boinet, Za Miniature Carolingienne (Paris, 1913), pl.
CXIV), in his Gospels (Boinet, op. cit., pl. CXV), in his Bible (Boinet, pl. CXXI), and in his
Prayer Book (Von Schlosser, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerhichsten
Kaiserhauses, XIII (1892), 238, Fig. $8.
66 Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis
Slavic wars; so, for the moment, the field was clear for the other
uncle, Charles the Bald. Encouraged by Hincmar, Archbishop of
Rheims, who saw his authority as metropolitan enlarged if Lorraine
were united with Neustria, Charles reached Metz, the capital of
Lorraine, on September 5th.'! The city was of special importance to
the king. His father, Louis the Pious, was buried within its walls.?
X His race was descended from St Arnulf, bishop of the city. Again,
in the very Cathedral of St Stephen, his father had been crowned in
835 after the humiliating struggle caused by Louis’s determination
that the young Charles should not lack a heritage.* In a: special
sense the city was the cradle of the Carolingian house.
The coronation of Charles the Bald on September 9, 869, in the
same Cathedral of St Stephen, lacked nothing in the way of reference
to these associations. It moved in the atmosphere of precedent and
the past. We are fortunate in having a rather full account of the
proceedings. One of the eyewitnesses and chief actors, Hincmar of
Rheims, Charles’s most trusted adviser, has left in the part he wrote
of the Annales Bertiniani a description so complete that it includes
even the speeches of the three chief participants, Adventius, Bishop
of Metz, King Charles and Hincmar himself.‘ Adventius opened
the ceremony with a speech addressed to the bishops of Lorraine
and to the people. Charles is to be acclaimed as their lord since
“we believe him a prince elected and given to us by God.” The
king himself, then, spoke a few words ending by demanding that
the bishops show him loyalty “‘such as your predecessors faithfully,
rightfully and with reason showed to my predecessors.”” The con-
cluding harangue was made by Hincmar of Rheims. First, lest it
should seem incongruous to anyone that he, the metropolitan of the
province of Rheims, should concern himself in the affairs of the
province of Trier in which Metz is situated, he explains the close
and sisterly relations between these two provinces. The bishops of
Lorraine, not having at the moment a metropolitan bishop since
the Archbishopric of Trier was vacant, have commanded him in
brotherly charity to exercise his small abilities in their affairs. But
1 E. Duimmler, op. cit., IT, 282. 2 Ibid., I, 187. * Ihid., I, 109.
¢ Les Annales de Saint-Bertin e& de Saint-Vaast (ed. Abbé C. Debaisnes), pp. 191-197.
Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis 67
the burden of Hincmar’s speech is the recitation of the genealogical
reasons for Charles’s coronation. These are carried back as far as
possible. The father of Charles, Louis the Pious, through his descent
from St Arnulf of Metz, was of the race of Clovis, the king of the
Franks converted to Christianity by St Remi of Rheims and unc-
tioned with oil sent from Heaven. Louis himself was first crowned
at Rheims by Pope Stephen, and, after his humiliation by his son
Lothaire and his rehabilitation before the tomb of the special martyr
Denis in Paris, he was restored to his kingly and imperial dignity
by a new coronation “‘in this house before this altar of the Proto-
martyr Stephen whose name interpreted ts sounded ‘coronatus.’”
After the conclusion of this speech, Hincmar’s demand for the coro-
nation of Charles was met with the affirmative acclaim of the bish-
ops. The Te Deum was sung and each of the bishops present sepa-
rately blessed the king. Finally together they imposed the crown.!
Such was the ceremony of coronation for Charles as King of Lor-
raine. It is apparent that Hincmar of Rheims and Adventius of
Metz together with the king were the chief participants.
The iconography of the miniature in MS. 1141 was determined,
it seems to me, by the ideas which stand out in the ceremony at
Metz. The royal house in the person of Clovis had been chosen by
God and unctioned by oil sent from Heaven for the purpose. St
Remi, Archbishop of Rheims, the ancient precursor of Hincmar,
performed the ceremony. The precursor of Adventius, St Arnulf,
Bishop of Metz, was at the same time the descendant by blood of
Clovis and the founder of the Carolingian line, called in consequence
the House of St Arnulf. The father of Charles the Bald, Louis the
Pious, having paid his vows to St Denis, his special patron, had been
crowned in the same Cathedral of St Stephen which now had been
the scene of a similar ceremony for the son. In our picture the dia-
dem imposed by the Hand of God refers to the divine election of the
Carolingian House. The prince and the two approving archbishops,
all three wearing the nimbus, are the sainted predecessors of Charles,
Hincmar and Adventius. The two ecclesiastics are represented as
archbishops with the pallium since two metropolitan provinces,
1 Monumenta Germaniae Historica (ed. G. H. Pertz, Hanover, 18385), Leges, I, 512-515.
A
' a
» ©
(aa .
—
. salt, The prince is most likely Clovis, representing the start of the royal
a
‘
68 Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis
Rheims and Trier, were concerned in the coronation-ceremony as
Hincmar pointed out in his speech. I have no doubt that the three
figures in the miniature represent particular personages, but the
absence of the inscription beneath the scene makes the attempt at
further identification a mere balancing of possibilities. Perhaps the
more ornate archbishop is St Remi; the other may be St Arnulf,
-,shonored with the pallium as representing the metropolitan of Trier.
line ‘and given the nimbus by the veneration of his descendant,
Charles the Bald, who may have helped determine the iconography
used by his school of miniaturists in the abbey of St Denis. In any
case, it is not particularly valuable at this time to pursue these
identifications since it 1s clear that the central idea of the picture,
portraying the divine election of the Carolingian line and the sainted
predecessors of the king and the bishops, is in complete accord with
the circumstances attending the ceremony at Metz in 869.
On the page (fol. 3r) which faces the coronation-picture (fol. 2v)
is another full-page miniature (Fig. 2) representing St Gregory the
Great and two little clerks to whom he is dictating the sacred chant
which the Holy Ghost in the form of a white dove whispers in his ear.
Underneath the scene is the same gold-edged purple panel that we
noticed under the preceding miniature. Like the other, this panel is
left absolutely blank. The inclusion of a miniature of St Gregory
at the beginning of the Roman sacramentary which he is supposed to
have composed is natural enough. But the blank panels beneath
both this scene and the preceding suggest that the explanatory
verses which were to start under the coronation-picture were to be
concluded under the picture of St Gregory and thus to connect the
subjects of the two miniatures in thought. This idea of carrying
the inscription overleaf and referring to the preceding miniature
would not have been unique at this time. In another of the manu-
scripts of Charles the Bald, the Coder Aureus of St Emmeram, the
miniature representing Charles enthroned and that of the Adoration
* of the Lamb are linked together in this fashion.1_ Therefore we can
1 G. Leidinger, “Ein verlorenes Evangeliarium mit Buchmalereien aus der Zeit Karls des
Grossen,” Monatshefte fiir Biicherfreunde und Graphiksammler, I (1925), 182.
Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis 69
argue for a similar arrangement in the case of our sacramentary. If
the coronation miniature represents the ceremony at Metz, the
connection between it and the miniature of St Gregory 1s clear, since
Metz was the greatest centre in northern Europe for Gregorian chant
and had retained that preéminence since St Chrodegang prescribed
the “‘ Romana cantilena” for his clerics in the eighth century.!. The
inscription under the two miniatures probably was intended to refer
to Metz, the home of Gregorian chant, as well as to the city of the
coronation.
MS.1141 is usually referred to as a “fragment” of a sacramentary,
but this is not exactly correct. The verso of the last of its ten folios
is blank. The inscriptions on folios 2v and 3r were, as we have seen,
never filled in. We may better conclude, then, that the manu-
script is an unfinished sacramentary whose execution was, for some
reason, suddenly stopped. History again steps in to help us to an
explanation. Charles was crowned king of Lorraine on September
9, 869. Shortly afterwards his brother, Louis the German, sound
in body once more, so successfully took the field against him to dis-
pute the succession that Charles was forced to make terms. By the
Treaty of Meersen, concluded between them on August 8, 870,
exactly one year after the death of Lothaire, Charles lost forever
the city of Metz and half his kingdom of Lorraine.? So the reason
for continuing the work on the coronation-sacramentary had evap-
orated. By the summer of 870 evidently only the first ten folios
had been finished, but these were by nature the most important.
The blank panels under the miniatures which referred to the proud
ceremony at Metz could wait for their inscription until the day
that Charles recovered the coronation-city. That day never came
although Charles never relinquished hope. As late as 875 he still
dated his acts as successor of Lothaire in 869.2 Consequently we
may think that the king, until his death in 877, expectantly kept the
ten splendid folios in his library awaiting the time when the rest of
the manuscript might be added and the inscriptions inserted with-
out mockery.
1 P. Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary (tr. from the Srd French ed., London:
Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), pp. 64-65.
2 E. Dtimmler, op. cit., II, 297-298. 3 M. A. Giry, op. cit., p. 712.
70 Two Manuscripts of the School of St Denis
The origin of this sumptuous unfinished sacramentary has been
determined by the coincidence of several kinds of evidence. The
style of the ornamentation places it in a group of manuscripts which
were made in the monastery of St Denis, Paris, between the years
867 and 877. The iconography of the miniature of the Crucifixion
confirms this provenience. Then, since the school of illumination
at St Denis was under the special patronage of the abbot, Charles
the Bald, the subject matter of the first two full-page miniatures is
seen to refer to the coronation of Charles as king of Lorraine at
Metz in 869. The unfinished state of the ten folios points to the loss
of that kingdom in 870. Without too much temerity we can con-
clude that MS. 1141 of the fonds latin in the Bibliothéque Nationale
was written and illuminated in the monastery of St Denis by the
order of Charles the Bald to commemorate his coronation at Metz
and must therefore date in the year 869-870.!
1 The subsequent history of MS. 1141 does not aid us in our consideration of its origin.
Bastard, who first reproduced pages of the manuscript (Comte Auguste de Bastard, Peintures
et ornements des manuscrits, Paris, 1840-47, Pls. 196-198) states that it was preserved in the
treasury of the church of Metz until the end of the seventeenth century. But no later writer
\ knows where Bastard got this information (cf. Delisle, op. cit. supra, p.147). The Bibliothéque
Nationale possesses a figured copy of the manuscript (lat. 9447) which dates in the seventeenth
century and at the beginning of which can be read: “‘Copié sur la copie ancienne tirée du
Pontifical de Jumiége qu’avoit M. Balesdens et que Von estime d environ cing cens ans; ainsy peu
ancien.” From the collection of Ballesdens the manuscript became No. 1844 in the library of
Colbert from whence it came into the Bibliothéque Nationale.
PriIncETON UNIVERSITY.
THE HOME OF THE EASTER PLAY
KARL YOUNG
NE would have supposed that by this time the origin and early
development of the Easter play (Visitatio Sepulchri) had been
so adequately described that further disclosures could serve only to
clarify details in the record. Certainly the more notable students of
this early play have for a long time agreed in at least one generaliza-
tion: that it arose within the liturgy of certain churches of Western
Europe in the course of the tenth century.' To this belief, however, |
Dr Joseph Klapper, of Breslau, has recently issued a vigorous chal-
lenge,? asserting that the Visitatto Sepulchri originated, not in France.
or Germany or Switzerland, and not so late as the tenth century, but
in Jerusalem, and several centuries earlier.
I
In approaching this new view of the matter let us first recall the
outlines of the account now generally accepted. The current belief is
that the Easter play originated about the year 900, when, under the
influence of a general movement toward liturgical embellishment, a
cleric, presumably a monk, at St Gall or elsewhere in the West, com-
posed, as an introduction to the Introit of the Mass of Easter (Re-
surrezi et adhuc), a dramatic trope, of which the following is the
simplest extant version: *
1 One need refer only to the materials assembled by E. K. Chambers, The Medtaeval Stage
(Oxford, 1901), II, 1-36. For later bibliography, see statements by the present writer in Pub-
ications of the Modern Language Association, XXIX (1914), 1-5; and see N. C. Brooks, The
Sepulchre of Christ in Art and Liturgy (University of Illinois Studies in Language and Litera-
ture, VII, No. 2), Urbana, 1921, pp. 46-49. The two following articles do not, I think, require
special attention here: A. Salzer, “Die Anfinge des modernen Dramas: Die Osterfeiern,” in
Studien und Mitteilungen sur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens, XXXII (1911), 330-833; J.
Schwietering, “Uber den liturgischen Ursprung des mittelalterlichen geistlichen Spiels,” in
Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Altertum, LXII (1925), 1-20.
2 “Der Ursprung der lateinischen Osterfeiern,” in Zeitschrift fiir deuteche Phtlologie, L
(1923), 46-58.
3 See K. Young, “The Origin of the Easter Play,” in Publications of the Modern Language
Association, XXIX (1914), 1-58, especially 1-18.
72 The Home of the Easter Play
Interrogatio: Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, (0) Christicolae?
Responsio: Ihesum nazarenum crucifixum, o Caelicolae?
(Interrogantes ): Non est hic; surrexit sicut praedizerat.
Ite, nuntiate quia surrerit de sepulchro. (Resurrexz.)!
This simple liturgical excrescence obviously provides a brief dia-
logue for the Marys and Angels at the door of the empty Tomb. Of
this Introit trope we possess some forty examples, which show a cer-
tain variety in that, to the three utterances before us, others are some-
times prefixed or added.? But the essence of the trope is contained in
the example given above. With the possible exception of one late
version, of the fifteenth century,’ none of these compositions, while
connected with the Easter Introit, became a true play. That is to
say, none of them, so far as we know, was presented through actual
ampersonation of the Marys or Angels.
In the course of the tenth century the dramatic trope Quem quaert-
tis found lodgement in another part of the liturgy: after the third re-
sponsory of Easter Matins, immediately before the Te Deum. This
became the normal location of the dialogue throughout the Middle
Ages, as we know from many scores of extant texts.‘ In this position
it acquired a specific mise-en-scéne in the Easter Sepulchre, a struc-
ture which had been provided originally for other observances,® but
which was peculiarly appropriate for the dialogue before us. Most
important of all, however, is the transforming of the dialogue into
true drama. This was accomplished by the simple provision that
those who delivered the utterances should impersonate the characters
concerned. The resulting play is conveniently termed the V2sztatzo
Sepulchri, and is usually regarded as our first modern drama.
It happens that the Visitatio Sepulchri was usually longer than the
dramatic trope given above, since it often included, for example, ad-
1 St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS. 484, Troparium Sangallense saec. x, p. 111. Concerning
this text see Chambers, op. cit., II, 9.
2 T undertake to print and expound all the texts of this trope in my study, “‘ The Origin
the Easter Play,” (cit. supra).
® See “The Origin of the Easter Play,” (cit. supra), pp. 47-49.
¢ The most convenient collection, containing some two hundred'examples, is that of Carl
Lange, Die lateinischen Osterfeiern, Munich, 1887.
’ See K. Young, The Dramatic Associations of the Easter Sepulchre (University of Wiscon-
sin Studies in Language and Literature, No. 10), Madison, 1920; N. C. Brooks, The Sepulchre
of Christ in Art and Liturgy (cit. supra). |
The Home of the Easter Play 13
ditional utterances for the Angels or the Marys.' To the scene be-
tween the Angels and Marys (Stage I), moreover, was often added a
scene in which appear the Apostles, Peter and John (Stage IT); ? and
in a considerable number of versions is found a dialogue between
Christ and Mary Magdalen (Stage III).? But in all these stages of
development the brief dialogue of Quem quaeritzs may be considered
the centre of the play.
II
As I have already intimated, in his important new study Dr
Klapper sets this accepted demonstration completely aside. For the
origin of the Visitatio Sepulchri he looks not to a Western monastic
Introit trope of about the year 900, later lodged at the end of Matins
for freer dramatic development, but to the ceremonials used in the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, where, as he thinks, the
Visitatio Sepulchri was invented between the years 500 and 750, and
whence returning Crusaders eventually carried it to their homes in
the Western countries of Europe.
The text upon which Dr Klapper bases most of his argument is
the following, from a manuscript of the fourteenth century at Bres-
lau: ‘
In die sancto Pasce ad Matutinas non dicitur Domine, labia mea, nec
Deus in adiutorium meum; sed primo incipiatur Inuitatorium: Allelura, sur-
rexitt Dominus. Psalmus: Venite. Ympnus non dicitur. Antiphona: Ego
sum qui sum. Psalmus: Beatus uir. Antiphona: Postulaut patrem. Psalmus:
Quare fre(muerunt).§ Antiphona: Ego dormiui. Psalmus: Domine, quid
1 See Lange, pp. 22-79. 2 See ibid., pp. 79-136. 3 See thid., pp. 186-165.
¢ Breslau, Universit&tsbibliothek, MS. I. Qu. 175, Ordinartum secundum usum Hierosoly-
mitanum saec. xiv, fol. 45%, col. 1-46", col.1. The manuscript is described by A. Schinfelder,
“* Die Prozessionen der Lateiner in Jerusalem zur Zeit der Kreuzztige,”’ in Historisches Jahrbuch
(Gorres-Gesellschaft), XXXII (1911), 578-597, and by Klapper, op. cit. supra, pp. 47-50. As
Schinfelder has indicated (p. 579), the volume shows signs of adaptation for use outside Jeru-
salem. It was written in the fourteenth century for the Knights of the Red Star at Prague, and
later belonged to the Knights of the Double Red Cross at Neisse, near Breslau. Both Schin-
felder (p. 579) and Klapper (pp. 52, 58) infer, reasonably enough (see below), that the present
manuscript was copied from an original of the twelfth century (1157-1187). Like the usual
Ordinarium, it does not provide musical notation. I reprint the text from photographs of the
manuscript, with no important variations from the texts of Schinfelder (pp. 588, 589) and
Klapper (p. 52).
5 I do not know why Klapper considers it necessary toemend fre(muerunt) to faciem. See
Ps. ii, which is quite regular in this place in the liturgy of the West.
74 The Home of the Easter Play
multi (plicati). Antiphone duplicentur. Versiculus: Resurrertt Dominus,
allelura. Lectores (fol. 45%, col. 2) et Cantores cappis sericeis ' induantur.
Lectiones tres de Omelia Euangelii: Maria Magdalena. Responsonum: An-
gelus Domini. Versus: Angelus Domini. Responsorium: Angelus Domini?
Versus: Ecce precedet. Respousorium: Dum transisset. Versus: Et valde.
Gloria Patri. Reiteratur Dum transisset.
(Visitatio Sepulchri )
* Quod dum cantatur, preparantur tres Clerici iuuenes retro altare in
modum mulierum iuxta consuetudinem antiquam. Finito responsorio, pro-
cedant inde contra Sepulcrum deferentes singuli uas aureum uel argenteum
cum aliquo ungento, candelabris et turibulis preeuntibus, cantando ter:
O Deus! Quis reuoluet ?
Cumque ad portam Sepulcri venerint, duo alii Clerici iuxta portam Se-
pulcri, albis vestiti et habentes amictus super capita et candelas in manibus,
cantando respondeant sic:
Quem queritis ?
Mulieres:
Thesum nazare(num). (fol. 46", col. 1.)
Tunc illi duo:
Non est hic, quem queritis.
Interim Mulieres introeant in Sepulcrum, ibique facta Oratione breui,
exeant inde. Et uenientes in medium chori alta uoce nunciabunt ¢ can-
tando:
Alleluia, resurrexit.
Sed Visitacionem hanc modo § non facimus propter astancium multitudi-
nem.°
Quibus finitis incipiat Patriarcha: Te Deum laudamus.
Versus: In resurrectione tua, Christe, alleluia."
It will be observed that Easter Matins, completely outlined here,
contains a normal version of the Visitatio Sepulchri in the usual litur-
gical position between the third responsory and the Te Deum, and
that the text provides explicitly for impersonation (in modum mu-
lierum, etc.). The manuscript, which was written in the fourteenth
century for the Knights of the Red Cross at Prague, is an Ordinarzum
or Directorium, prescribing the ceremonial for the principal liturgical
2 sericeis] sericis (Klapper). 2 Klapper omits this passage.
* The text of Schénfelder begins here.
‘ nunciabunt]} nuncciabunt (MS., Schinfelder, Klapper).
§ modo] repeated in the MS., but repetition erased.
* The text of Schiénfelder ends here.
7 The rubric Ad Laudes follows immediately.
The Home of the Easter Play 15
occasions of the year in the ecclesiastical edifices surrounding the
Holy Sepulchre.! Particularly notable in it are the processional
ceremonials for the great days of Christmas and of Holy Week. The
Visitatio Sepulchri is here intended for performance at the Holy
Sepulchre itself, within the church called the Anastasis.?
Centering his attention upon the Vzsitatio, Dr Klapper infers
that the original from which the present text is derived was of the
twelfth century.’ This inference may be supported by evidence not
cited by him, for a virtually identical text had been previously pub-
lished from a manuscript at Barletta, of the thirteenth century, which
preserves the ceremonial used at the Holy Sepulchre in the twelfth.‘
Moreover I offer the following similar version of the Vvsitatio,
hitherto unpublished, I think, from a Vatican manuscript written for
use at the Holy Sepulchre in the year 1160: ®
In Die Sancro Pascoe ap MATuUTINUM
Inuitatorium a quatuor Canonicis antiquioribus in cappis sericis albis
cantatur: Alleluia, surrerit Dominus uere, alleluia. Psalmus: Venite. Hym-
nus non dicitur. Antiphona: Ego sum qui sum. Psalmus: Beatus uir. Anti-
phona: Postulaui patrem meum. Psalmus: Quare fre(muerunt). Antiphona:
Ego dormiui. Psalmus: Domine, quid. Versus: Resurrexit Dominus.’ Lec-
1 For a description of the content of the manuscript, see the reference to Schinfelder, note
4, p. 78 above.
2 Concerning the ecclesiastical fabric surrounding the Holy Sepulchre see the material
assembled by Brooks, The Sepulchre of Christ, etc. (cit. supra), pp. 9-12. A particularly con-
venient guide for the Holy Places is found in F. Cabrol, Les Eglises de Jérusalem: la Discipline
et la Liturgie au quatriéme Siécle, Paris, 1895.
3 See Schinfelder, p. 579; Klapper, p. 53.
* See C. Kohler, “Un Rituel et un Bréviaire du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem,”’ in Revue
delOrient Latin, VIII (1900-01), 383-500. The Visitatio Sepulchri is printed on p. 428. The
manuscript is preserved (apparently without shelf-number) in the Church of the Holy Sepul-
chre at Barletta, Italy. Although I shall refer below to this text of the Visitatto, I can see no
important reason for reprinting it here. I have not seen the manuscript.
5 Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana, Cod. Barberini lat. 659, Ordinarium ad usum Hierosolymi-
tanum anni 1160, fol. 75¥-76*. The manuscript is described by B. Zimmerman in Dictionnatre
@ Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie (ed. F. Cabrol, Paris, 1910), I, ii, 2167. The volume is
based upon the use of Central France, with adaptations to the ecclesiastical topography of
Jerusalem. It does not provide music. In the ceremonials of Holy Week and Easter, the Vati-
can and Breslau manuscripts essentially agree. I wish to thank Mrs Tenney Frank for her
gracious courtesy in helping me to obtain photographs of the Vatican manuscript.
* This word is followed by Sis, which I am unable to interpret. Professor E. K. Rand
suggests that it may be a scribal misunderstanding of All (Alleluia).
76 The Home of the Easter Play
tiones tres de Euangelio secundum Marchum: Maria Magdalene. Lectores
et Cantores cappis palleis induuntur. Responsorium: Angelus Domini de-
scendit. Versus: Angelus Domini. Responsorium: Angelus Domini locutus.
Versus: Ecce precedet. Responsorium: Dum transisset Sabbatum. Versus:
Et valde mane, cum Gloria reiteretur.
(VisITaATIO SEPULCHRI )
Quod dum cantatur, sint parati tres Clerici iuuenes in modum mulierum
retro altare, iuxta consuetudinem antiquorum. Quod non facimus modo
propter astancium peregrinorum multitudinem. Interim finito scilicet re-
sponsorio, procedunt inde preeuntibus ! candelabris et turibulis, deferentes
in manibus unusquisque uas aureum uel argenteum intus habens aliquod
unguentum, cantando ter Antiphonam:
O Deus! Quis reuoluet (nobis lapidem ab ostio monumentz )?
Cumque ad portam Sepulchri Gloriosi appropinquauerunt, duo alii Clerici
ante portam uel iuxta predictiSepulchri tenentes cereos in manibus, habentes
amictus super capita, respondentes cantabunt:
Quem queritis (in sepulchro, o Christicole )?
Respondebunt Mulieres:
Ihesum nazarenum (crucifirum, o Celicole).
Respondebunt tunc illi duo:
Non est hic; surrexit (sicut predizerat. Ite, nuntiate quia surrexit).
Tile canentibus ingredientur Sepulchrum Mulieres, ibique facta breui Ora-
tione regredientur, atque in medio choro stantes alta uoce cantando nuncia-
bunt:
Alleluca, resurrexit Dominus.
Quo finito, Patriar- (fol. 76" )-cha incipiat: Te Deum laudamus.
Versus: In resurrectione tua, Christe.?
Obviously this text of the twelfth century closely resembles that
of the fourteenth century used by Dr Klapper; and, as we shall see,
the earlier text will aid us in interpreting the later.
Let us proceed, then, to the specific arguments which Dr Klapper
bases upon the Breslau text of the fourteenth century, observing that
he is undertaking to demonstrate, first, that the details of the Bres-
lau text identify it as representing the oldest version of the Visitatzo
Sepulchri, and secondly, that this original version arose in Jerusalem
centuries before the Crusades, and reached the West only as an im-
portation from the Orient.
1 preeuntibus] pereuntibus (MS.).
2 Followed immediately by the rubric Jn Laudibus.
The Home of the Easter Play V7
Tit
In contending that the Breslau text presents the original version,
Dr Klapper draws attention first to the opening sentence, O Deus!
Quis revolvet ? — particularly to the words O Deus.! Although he is
aware of the fact that these two words are not present in the oldest
extant texts of the Visitatzo,? he insists that they must have been
present in the original form of the play. In support of this position
he offers only the surmise that so “peculiar’’ a formula could not
have been a later addition: “Diese anrufung kann nicht erst in ihrer
eigenartigkeit spitere zutat sein’ *— not, obviously, an argument
of the weightiest sort.
The broader facts of the matter are substantially these. The in-
troductory sentence Quis revolvet nobis lapidem ab ostio monument: ?
(or the variant Quis revolvet nobis ab ostio lapidem quem tegere sanc-
tum cernimus sepulchrum?), though never part of the Introit trope
Quem quaeritis, is found in a large number of the extant Vzsttationes,
of all stages (I, II, and IIT), and of all periods.‘ The prefatory ex-
clamation O Deus!, however, is rare. Outside the four texts obvi-
ously connected, directly or indirectly, with Jerusalem,' it is found
in only some seven published versions of the Visitatio, all of them
somewhat elaborated examples of Stage I, and all of them from
France.’ If the formula O Deus was an integral part of the original
Visitatio, as Klapper contends, one wonders not only at its absence
from the oldest extant versions of the play, but also at its rarity
among the hundreds of Visitationes preserved. From the evidence
1 See Klapper, pp. 46, 47.
2 See, for example, the text from the Concordia Regularis of St. Ethelwold, in Chambers,
The Mediaeval Stage, II, 309.. The oldest manuscript dates from about 1020-1080 and pre-
serves the ceremonials of the latter half of the preceding century.
? Klapper, p. 47.
‘ See Lange, pp. 29, 4-87, 45-47, 51-55, 81-160.
5 IT refer to the texts in the Breslau, Barletta, and Vatican (Barberini Lat. $69) manu-
scripts dealt with above, and to the text published by Professor N. C. Brooks, in Journal of
English and Germanic Philology, VIII (1909-10), 467.
® See Lange, Nos. 56, 57, 60, and 61 (pp. 36, 37, 39, 40); N. C. Brooks, The Sepulchre of
Christ (cit. supra), pp. 108, 109; and N. C. Brooks, in Journal of English and Germanic Philo-
logy, VIIT (1909-10), 471-478. I know of only two unpublished texts that might be classified
here.
78 The Home of the Easter Play
available at present I venture to infer that the interrogation Quis
revolvet, with or without the prefatory O Deus, was not part of the
original Visitatvo. The earliest text of the play in which I have ob-
served Quis revolvet shows the following inept use of it:
Presbyteri vice Mulierum: Et dicebant ad invicem, Quis revolvet nobis
lapidem ab ostio monumenti? !
The undramatic inclusion here of a narrative passage (Et dicebant ad
anvicem) may disclose the naive form in which this utterance was
first added to the simpler Visitatio, from the Vulgate ? or from the
liturgy.* It appears, in any case, that the four inappropriate narra-
tive words were soon dropped; ‘ and in the few French texts that I
have mentioned their place is occupied by the words O Deus.
Dr Klapper’s second reason for regarding the Breslau version as
the original concerns the second utterance of the two clerics who rep-
resent the Angels: Non est hic, quem queritis.> Among the numerous
extant Visitattones this utterance takes two different forms:
A. Non est hic; surrexit sicut preedixerat. Ite nuntiate quia surrexit.
B. Non est hic quem quaeritis; sed cito euntes nuntiate discipulis eius
et Petro quia surrexit Iesus.
In the earliest and simplest versions of the play (Stage I), the
usual form is the first (A); ° in the later and more highly developed
versions (Stages II and III) the prevailing form is the second (B).’
Yet Dr Klapper holds that the second form (B), the one found in
the Breslau text, is the earlier and the original.* By way of support-
\
1 Lange, No. $9, p. 29, Troparium Augiense (Reichenau) saec. z, xi, fol. 45°.
2 Marc., XVI, 8. 3 See Migne, Patrologia Latina, LX XVIII, 770.
¢ Lange prints one of the very few texts in which these words are retained (No. 109, pp.
81, 82). 5 Klapper, p. 47. * See Lange, p. 78. 7 See ibid., p. 182.
8 One need not take very seriously, I think, Dr Klapper’s inference (p. 53) that the brief
utterances provided for the personages in the Breslau Vtstfatio are not incipits, but the com-
plete original sentences. He observes that these utterances are not preceded by rubrics such
as antiphona, versus, and Psalmus, as are the liturgical pieces in the manuscript as a whole.
Hence he reasons that, since these rubrics are always followed by mere incigts, the absence of
such rubrics before the speeches in the V2s:tatio indicates that they are complete. But it should
be remembered that the speeches in the Vts:tatio before us are not, in general, liturgical forms
at all, but free, extra-liturgical inventions; hence they scarcely deserve, or need, such rubrics
as antiphona, versus, and Psalmus. As a matter of fact, the first utterance (Quis revolvet) is
often found in an Easter antiphon (see note $7, above); and in the Vatican text of the Vtsitatto,
which I have printed above, this opening speech is called anttphonal
The Home of the Easter Play 79
ing this opinion he considers the relations of the two forms to their
possible sources in the liturgy and in the Vulgate, citing first the fol-
lowing passage from an antiphon of Easter Vespers:
Jesum, quem quaeritis, non est hic, sed surrexit.!
As possible sources in the Vulgate he brings forward the following:
Non est hic, surrexit enim, sicut dixit . . . et
cito euntes, dicite discipulis eius, quia surrexit.?
Surrexit, non est hic . . . sed ite, dicite discipulis
eius et Petro.’
In an indirect connection with the present discussion ‘ he cites
also the following passage from the Vulgate:
Quid quaeritis viventem cum mortuis? Non est hic, sed surrexit; °
and the following variant of it:
Quem queritis lesum nazarenum cum mortuis, non est hic sed surrexit.*
In this variant, however, Klapper surmises’ that the Vulgate itself
may be influenced by some Palestinian text which he conjectures as
having affected also both the Vespers antiphon quoted above and,
through it, the relevant passage in the Breslau Visitatio. He ignores
the possibility, by no means negligible, I think, that this variant, or
a similar one, affected the passage in the Visitatio quite directly.
But returning to Klapper’s main contention, we find that from
the data before us he draws two conclusions concerning the dramatic
utterance under consideration: first, that the second form (B) re-
sembles the liturgy more closely than it does the Vulgate, and that
the first form (A) is textually nearer to the Vulgate than to the
liturgy; and secondly, that, being more nearly like the liturgical text
than is the first form (A), the second form (B) must be the earlier.*®
In so far as it depends upon verbal resemblances, Klapper’s argu-
ment at this point, though tenuous, need not be strenuously chal-
lenged. If we omit the “variant”’ from consideration, we may readily
1 See Migne, Pat. Lat., LXXVIII, 769, 770.
2 Matt., XXVIII, 6, 7. 3 Marc., XVI, 6, 7.
* Klapper, pp. 54, 55. § Luc., XXIV, 5, 6.
* Norum Testamentum (ed. J. Wordsworth and H. J. White, Oxford, 1898), Part I, Fasc.
8, p. 476. 7 Klapper, p. 55. © Iind., p. 47.
80 The Home of the Easter Play
enough admit that form B is both nearer to the liturgy than is form
A, and nearer to the liturgy than to the Vulgate. But I am entirely
unable to accept the assumption upon which Klapper proceeds to his
final conclusion — the assumption, namely, that a closer resem-
blance to the liturgy denotes priority in date. I know of no estab-
lished principle upon which, in a case such as that before us, a dramatic
text that closely resembles the liturgy must be considered earlier
than one that closely resembles the Vulgate.!
Fortunately, however, our decision in this matter need not rest
upon generalities, for we have at hand definite evidence that appears
to invalidate Klapper’s argument fundamentally. I have printed
above, from a Vatican manuscript,’ a text of the Visitatio Sepulchri
from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre which is some two centuries
older than the Breslau text used by Klapper. In the earlier text the
passage under consideration is not Non est hic, quem quaeritis, as in the
Breslau text, but Non est hic, surrerit; and the latter in the reading
also of the version from Barletta.? Our earliest and most substantial
evidence, then, seems to indicate that form A was the prevailing one
in the Visitatio at Jerusalem. Hence, since Klapper would have us
believe that form A is the later one, his present argument for the
priority of the Visttatzo at Jerusalem loses its validity.
IV
Having considered Dr Klapper’s attempt to show that the Vzs1-
tatio of Jerusalem represents the earliest form of the play, let us pro-
ceed to his reasons for inferring that the Visitatto was not carried to
Jerusalem by the Crusaders, but, on the contrary, must have been
introduced into the West by them, or by earlier pilgrims, upon their
return from the Holy City.
Dr Klapper observes,‘ in the first place, that in the Breslau
manuscript the Visitatzo is spoken of as a consuetudo antiqua (iuzta
1 The possible sources of the Quem quaeritis trope are considered somewhat more widely
in my study, “The Origin of the Easter Play,” (cté. supra), pp. 6-12.
2 Barberini Lat. 659. See above, p. 75.
2 See above, p. 75, note 4, and Revue de U'Orient latin, VIII (1900-01), 423.
4 See Klapper, pp. 52, 53, 55, 56.
The Home of the Easter Play 81
consuetudinem antiquam) which was no longer in use at the time when
the original of this manuscript was written: Sed Visitacionem hanc
modo non facimus propter astanctum multitudinem.’ Since he infers,
reasonably enough, that this original was composed in the twelfth
century,? he interprets these expressions as meaning that the V2sv-
fatto must have been in use at the Holy Sepulchre long before the
coming of the Crusaders in 1099, and that upon their arrival they
rather promptly stigmatized it as consueludo aniiqua and discon-
tinued it.? |
I should venture, however, to interpret the facts quite differently.
We know that among the clergy who accompanied the first Crusad-
ers the French predominated, and that they brought with them their
French liturgical observances. Inevitably they adapted these obser-
vances to the topography and sanctity of the Holy Places in Jerusa-
lem; but the essentials of their liturgy were French.‘ Although we
have not at hand the identical ordinaria that the followers and asso-
ciates of Godfrey of Bouillon carried to the Holy Places, there is
every reason for assuming that they contained the Vsitatvo Sepul-
chri, which by that date was widely distributed over France and
Western Europe. At present our earliest secure evidence that the
Visitatto was characterized as consuetudo antiqua, and ceased to be ee
performed, is of about the year 1160, the date of the Vatican manu-
script used above. By that date the expression consuetudo antiqua
would surely be appropriate enough for an observance established at |
Jerusalem more than half a century earlier. Even if the Crusaders
thought it wise to discontinue performing the V2sttatvo immediately
upon their arrival (1099-1100), they might well have characterized
as antigua a practice established in the West since the tenth century.
That the reason for “lately” (modo) discontinuing the V2sitatto, —
1 See the text above, p. 74.
? The Vatican manuscript (Barberini Lat. 659), of the year 1160, actually contains the
same expressions concerning the discontinuance of the Visitatio: . . . tuzta consuetudinem
antiguorum. Quod non facimus modo propter astancium peregrinorum multitudinem.
3 See Klapper, pp. 58, 55, 56.
¢ See B. Zimmerman, Ordinaire de ? Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel (Bibliothéque
Liturgique, XIII), Paris, 1910, p. x; tdem, “Rite du Saint-Sépulere,”’ in Dictionnaire d Arch6o-
logie chrétienne et de Liturgie (ed. F. Cabrol, Paris, 1910), II, ii, 2167.
5 See above, p. 75, note 5.
a.
82 The Home of the Easter Play
either about 1160 or about 1099, — was the thronging of pilgrims,
need cause no surprise, and has no special bearing upon the date of
the original Visitatio. We may merely accept gratefully the vivifying
phrase propter astantitum peregrinorum multitudinem,! which enables
us to visualize the jostling crowds that had streamed into the none
too ample Anastasis and had surrounded the rock of the Holy Sepul-
chre in a turbulent desire to see a Christian mystery dramatized.
In arguing further for Jerusalem as the original home of the Vzst-
tattoo, Dr Klapper asserts * that if the play had been brought by the
Crusaders from the West, it would have been found at Jerusalem, not
in the simple form preserved in the Breslau manuscript, but in one of
the longer and more highly developed versions current in the West
during the period of the Crusades. To this assertion one must reply
that when the longer forms had been developed in Western Europe
the simpler forms apparently continued in use also. This we infer
from the fact that manuscripts of the later centuries present the
shorter versions without intimation that they were in disuse. Forms
even simpler than that in the Breslau manuscript are present, for
example, in a Utrecht Liber Responsalrs of the twelfth century,® a
Sens Ordinarium of the thirteenth century,‘ a Senlis Breviary of the
fourteenth century,® and a Navarre Processional of the fifteenth
century.® Obviously, then, the Crusaders who came to Jerusalem
during the twelfth century could have brought with them either a
simple or a more highly developed version of the Visitatio, in accord-
ance with their choice or their local Western custom.
Another reason advanced by Dr Klapper for his belief that the
Visttatto originated at Jerusalem is the vivid nature of the cere-
monials which centered in the Holy Sepulchre during the early Chris-
tian centuries.’ For examples he very appropriately resorts to the
famous Peregrinatio Aetheriae, in which a visitor from Gaul in the
latter part of the fourth century records her remarkable observa-
1 IT quote this time from the Vatican manuscript.
2 See Klapper, p. 56. ? See Lange, No. 19, p. 28.
* See thid., No. 29, p. 25. 5 See thid., No. 35, pp. 27, 28.
® See ibid., No. 17, p. 22. The number of the manuscript is not 1223, as Lange gives it,
but 1128.
7 See Klapper, pp. 56, 57.
The Home of the Easter Play 83
tions .upon the liturgical observances in Jerusalem; ' and he quotes
the passage describing the liturgy performed at the Tomb each Sun-
day morning.? The bishop enters the brilliantly lighted grotto of
the Sepulchre, while the crowds surging in the Anastasis press toward
him. A priest, a deacon, and a cleric read each a psalm followed by a
prayer. Then commemorations are said, and perfumes are burned
within the Sepulchre, scenting the whole surrounding basilica.
Finally the bishop, advancing to the door of the recess, reads the
Gospel narrative of the Resurrection, so poignantly arousing the
emotions of his auditors that they cannot restrain their moans and
laments at the thought of the sufferings endured for them in that
place.
Quod cum coeperit legi, tantus rugitus et mugitus fit omnium hominum
et tantae lacrimae, ut quamuis durissimus possit moueri in lacrimis Dom-
inum pro nobis tanta sustinuisse.
The ceremonial on Easter Sunday is virtually the same.?
Certainly no one will deny that such a scene is potently impres-
sive, and that it provides in mise-en-scéne and religious intention
every necessary inspiration toward dramatic invention; but the cere-
monial before us is not a play, for it lacks both impersonation and
dialogue. The pertinent question, then, is simply this: Did the cere-
monial at the Holy Sepulchre ever develop a play such as the Vist-
tattoo before the time of the Crusades? Apparently Dr Klapper
thinks it did.‘ He surmises that in some indirect way the observance
that Aetheria describes must have resulted eventually in a sort of
dramatic procession analogous to that of Palm Sunday; and here his
speculation on this matter ends. The vagueness is pardonable, for
evidence is lacking. If anything like a Visitatio Sepulchri had de-
veloped at the Holy Sepulchre between the fourth century and the
1 Concerning the actual name of this pilgrim (Silvia, Aetheria, Egeria, Eucheria), see A.
Wilmart, in Revue Bénédictine, XXV (1908), 458-467; and J. F. Mountford, in Classical Quar-
terly, XVIT (1923), 40, 41. For a convenient exposition of the Peregrinatio see F. Cabrol, Les
Eglises de Jérusalem (cit. supra).
2 For the text see P. Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana Saeculi IV-V III (Vienna, 1888), pp.
78,74. See also Cabrol, Les Eglises, etc. (cit. supra), p. 52.
2 See Geyer, pp. 90,91. Asa matter of fact, Etheria’s description of this ceremonial on
Easter Day is much less detailed than that for the ordinary Sunday, outlined above.
4 See Klapper, p. 57.
84 The Home of the Easter Play
year 1099, we should expect to find some mention of it in a liturgical
book, in the report of some pilgrim, or in some other record. Since I
can find no such reference,! and since on this point Dr Klapper ap-
pears to offer only speculation, I must leave his present contention in
its own obscurity.
The next argument that we are required to examine centres in the
formula O Deus, with which the Breslau Visitatzo begins. We have
already considered Dr Klapper’s attempt to show that O Deus must
have been included in the original version of the Visitatio.?, We are
now asked to believe that this formula must have been a contribu-
tion from Jerusalem, for the reason that, whereas the liturgical
formulse of the West provide no O Deus, but only Deus, the Trisagion
used at the Adoratzo Crucis in Jerusalem includes the words O Theos.’
It appears that the author of the Breslau Visitatio is not credited
with the power of inventing O Deus, or of ascending independently
from Deus to O Deus! Assuming, then, if we must, that the words O
Deus need a liturgical source, we may find that source easily enough
in the West. The Adoratio Crucis, which arose in Jerusalem in the
third or fourth century, was adopted, with its Trisagion, into the
Roman ceremonial of Good Friday in the seventh or eighth century.‘
Thus the expression O Theos was conveniently at hand in Western
Europe some two or three centuries before the date of the earliest
extant version of the Visitatio Sepulchri. And it should be remem-
bered also that the Glorta in excelsis, as sung in Greek in the ninth
and tenth centuries in France, contained the expression Kyrrie o
Theos.®
1 For negative evidence, see F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (Oxford, 1905), pp.
521-523. Conybeare’s document is a record of the assemblies in the Holy Places of Jerusalem
as they occurred in the fifth century. For negative evidence in pilgrims’ reports of the sixth,
seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries see Geyer, pp. 145-149, 171, 208, 227-282, 303-305; and
T. Tobler and A. Molinier, Itinera Hterosolymitana et Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae (Geneva,
1879), I, 268, 264, $14, 315.
2 See above, p. 77 ff. 3 See Klapper, pp. 57, 58.
¢ On the matter of the introduction of the Adoratio Crucis into the West see A. Baum-
stark, ‘‘Der Orient und die Gesiinge der Adoratio Crucis,”’ in Jahrbuch fiir Liturgiewtssen-
schaft, IT (1922), 2, 8, 6; V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik (Freiburg, 1912),
I, 633; F. Cabrol, Livre de la Priére antique (Paris, 1918), pp. 258, 254; idem, Les Origines
liturgiques (Paris, 1906), p. 182; The Catholic Encyclopaedia, IV, 586-587; VI, 648.
5 See H. Netzer, L’ Introduction de la Messe romaine en France (Paris, 1910), p. 215; Ar-
chaeologia, XLVI (1881), $92, 398.
The Home of the Easter Play 85
Finally, the Vzsttatzo is held to be of Oriental origin for the reason
that the Patriarch of Jerusalem. who takes a part in virtually all the
processions prescribed in the Breslau Ordinarium, has no role in the
play under consideration. This Ordinarium as a whole is conceded
to be a Western product; ? and since the Patriarch has a part in the
processions generally, the fact that he acts no rdle in the play before
us is taken as an indication that the Visitatio is not Western but
Oriental in origin. To this reasoning I must reply that in intoning
the Te Deum at the end of the Visitatio,* the Patriarch has precisely
the contact with the performance that we should anticipate. Unlike
the other processions in the Breslau book, the Visztatio is a play, de-
pendent for its effect upon zmpersonation. It is not to be expected
that the Patriarch would costume himself and act the part of one of
the Marys or of one of the Angels. A glance at the innumerable ver-
sions of the Vzsitatzo discloses the fact that the actors in these plays
are not prelates, but clerict, cantores, canonici, presbytert, diacont,
fratres, and the like. The bishop or abbot, if he is present, normally
performs precisely the function assigned to the Patriarch by the
Breslau Ordinarium: he intones the Te Deum.‘
V
From the examination now completed I infer that the proposal of
an Oriental origin for the Easter play cannot be accepted. If my own
reasoning should here and there seem captious, I hope that this un-
fortunate effect is due, in some measure, to the tenuousness and tor-
tuousness of parts of the argument under review. But however in-
adequate I must regard Dr Klapper’s study as a demonstration in
literary history, I value it highly for having brought into prominence
the question of dramatic origins at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
I hold, then, that the current view as to the origin of the Easter
play is correct, and that the Visitatto Sepulchri developed in Western
Europe after the manner that I have briefly indicated above.5 The
1 See Klapper, p. 55. 2 See zbid., pp. 50, 55.
3 See the Breslau text above, p. 74.
¢ See, for example, Lange, pp. 25, 28, 31, $7, 68, 67, 101, 108, 124.
§ See Section I.
l
86 The Home of the Easter Play
Crusaders carried their Western liturgical practices with them to
Jerusalem, and promptly established them in the Holy Places;' and
there is every reason for supposing that these practices included the
Visitatio Sepulchri. We may safely infer that the Vatican manu-
script of the year 1160, used above, represents fairly the body of
liturgical ceremonial which the French clerics brought to Jerusalem.
This book bears clear evidence of its ultimate origin in France,? and,
as I have shown above,’ the Visitatto in it, like the one in the Bres-
lau manuscript, is characteristically French.
1 See above, note 58.
2 See Zimmerman, in Dictionnaire d Archéologie chrétienne ef de Liturgie, II, ii, 2167, (ert.
ese p. 84.
Yare University.
THE POEMS ASCRIBED TO FREDERICK IIT AND
“REX FREDERICUS”
HERMANN H. THORNTON
HIS is the first of three articles dealing with the poems in ex-
tant MSS ascribed to the Emperor Frederick II and his sons.
In the present article the four poems ascribed to the Emperor and
“‘Rex Fredericus”’ are for the first time brought together in a criti-
cal edition. The second article will offer a critical edition of the
poems ascribed to King Enzio. The third article will deal with the
question of the authorship of the poems in both groups.
The MSS in which the poems are preserved, and the symbols by
which those MSS will be designated, are as follows:
V: Vaticano 3793
P: Palatino 418
ER: Laurenziano Rediano 9
Ch: Chigiano L, vitt, 305
Ma: Magliabechiano VII, 7, 1208
V?: Vaticano 3214
UB: Unwersity of Bologna Library, MS 1289
The method of text-construction followed in the present edition
is that designated as No. 3 by Tallgren in the Introduction to his
edition of Rinaldo d’Aquino! and which he defines as follows:
“Texte critique de la tradition manuscrite archalsante: langue dé-
toscanisée autant que le permettent les mss.”” After having examined
with much care the five or six possible ways in which the edition of
a text for the Frederician poets may be approached, he chooses the
above-mentioned method for his edition, as being the one which
permits an editor, working within the manuscript tradition, to reduce
conjecture to a minimum and present a text which, at the same time,
conserves much of the Meridional coloring of the original language
of the poets of the Frederician Group, which was a prominent trait
of the poems in their original form.
1 O. Tallgren, “Les Potsies de Rinaldo d’Aquino,” Mémoires de la Socitté Néophilologique
de Helsingfors, VI (1917), 174-803.
88 Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “‘ Rex Fredericus”’
To elaborate somewhat the terms of Tallgren’s definition cited
above, we have sought to conserve all Meridionalisms and bona fide
Sicilianisms, archaisms and Latinisms, guaranteed by at least one
of the MSS, even though that MS should not be one of the three
earliest (P, ZR, V). In orthography, we have followed what seems
to be the relatively consistent practice of the scmbes of the two oldest
MSS, P and LR. In the case of Poems I and III, which occur only
in V, we have necessarily adhered to what seemed to be the most
conservative practice of the copyists within the limits of the manu-
script tradition of those poems.
In the matter of accents, modern usage has been disregarded. The
grave accent has been used exclusively in the diacritic function, to
distinguish between such homonyms as 0 (< L. habeo) and o (< L.
aut), 86 (< L. sapio) and so (< L. sum or sunt), etc. It is not used in
such words as piu, gia, etc. The acute accent has been used only
once, and then to denote abnormal stress in the word vaténe (Poem
III, line 1). The diaeresis has been used in a few cases where it
seemed desirable to indicate the syllabic value of a vowel.
The divergent practice of the scribes of the various MSS as to
word- and line-division has been unified on the basis of modern
usage; the basis for capitalization is that of modern Italian prose.
The apostrophe is used to indicate enclisis as well as elision. In-
ternal rime is shown by the short dash (Poems I and ITI). Otherwise,
the punctuation is conservatively modern, tending toward explicit-
ness rather than the contrary.
In each case all variants from the readings of the MS selected as
the basic MS are completely accounted for by a general statement in
the notes as to the orthographic practice of the scribes of the various
MSS, and by the entry at the foot of each page of text of all variants
not merely orthographic.
i, De la mia disianza,
c’d penata ad avere
mi fa sbaldire, — poi chi n’d rasgione,
che m’a data fermanza
Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “‘ Rex Fredericus”’ 89
com’ io possa compiere 5
lo meo volire — senza ongne casgione. |
A la stagione — ch’io |’avro ’n possanza,
senza fallanza — volglian le persone
per chui cagione — facciamo membranza!
i. A tut’ ora membrando 10
de lo dolze diletto
ched io aspetto — so alegro e gaudente.
Vaio tanto tardando
che paura mi metto
ed 6 sospetto — de la mala giente, 15
che per neiente — vanno disturbando
e rampongnando — chi ama lealmente;
ond’ io sovente — vado sospirando.
All MS readings here given are those of V, the only MS in which the poem occurs. 1. di-
siansa] dissianza § 6. lo meo volire] notin MS. 17. Vavrdé’n] lavero 8. volglian]
volgliano 9. facciamo] faccamo 10. membrando] rimemembrando' 12. so] sonne
17. lealmente] leale mente 18. sospirando] sosospirando.
iii, Sospiro e std ’n ranchura;
ch’io so si disioso 20
e pauroso, — mi face penare.
Ma tando m’asichura
lo suo viso amoroso
e lo gioioso — riso e lo sguardare
e lo parlare — di quella criatura 25
che per paura — mi facie penare
e dimorare, — tant’ é fine e pura.
iv. Tanto é ssagia e cortese,
no credo che pensasse
né distornasse — cio che m’a *mpromiso. 30
Da la ria gente aprese;
da lor nom si stornasse!
che mi tornasse — a danno, chi gli 6 ofeso.
90 Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “Rex Fredericus”
E ben mi & miso — in pene e fatt’ offise.
Poi che mi mise — in foco, cio m’é aviso; $5
ché lo bel viso — lo cor m’adivise.
19. std ’n} sto 20. so] sono 21. face] fate 2%. tando] tanto 9380. cio] di
cio m’& ’mpromiso] mi jmpromise 82. lor] lora 384-35. in pene e fatt’ offise. Poi che
mi mise] notin MS 36. bel] bello cor] core.
v. Diviso m’a lo core
e lo corppo a ’m ballia
e in umilia, — e tienmi incatenato.
La fiore d’ongne fiore 40
prego per cortesia
che piu nom sia — suo detto fallato,
né disturbato — per inizadore,
né suo valore — nom sia menovato
né rabassato — per altro amadore. 45
$9. MS etienemi jmmilia fortte jncatenato 42. suo] lo suo.
II
i. Poi ke tti piace, Amore,
ke eo degia trovare,
faronde mia possanga
k’io vegna a conpimento.
Dat’ agio lo meo core 5
iN vol, madonna, amare,
e tucta mia sperancga
in vostro piacimento;
e nom mi partiragio
da voi, donna valente, 10
k’eo v’amo dolcemente
e piace a voi k’eo agia intendimento.
Valimento — mi date, donna fina,
ké llo meo core adesso a voi s inkina.
1. tti] Vavoi P,V?ti @. keeo] V ch’io Ch ch’eo V*k’eo 8. faronde] V, Ch, V*
faronne 65. Dat’ agio] Ch Dato aggio V* daraggio 6. voi, madonna] Ck vo madonn
8. piacimento] V piagimento 9. e nom] V ch’io non; PE no 12%. piace] V? piaccia
k’eo agia] V ch’agia 14. llo] V,P,Chlo aj] lacking in V.
Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “Rex Fredericus” 91
ii, S’ i’ inkino, ragione agio 15
di si amoroso bene;
ka spero e vd sperando
k’ ancora deio avere
allegro meo coragio
e tucta la mia spene: 20
fui dato in voi amando
ed in vostro volere.
E veio li senbianti
di voi, kiarita spera,
ka ’specto gioia intera 25
ed 6 fidanca ne lo meo servire,
& piacere — di voi, ke ssiete fiore
sor l’altre donne, e avete piu valore.
15. S’i7]V Sio Ch, V*Siv 17. ka] Vch’io spero}] V*specto e vo] Vinvoi 18.
ancora] V*ancor deio] V credo 19. meo}] Vilmio 20. lamia] Chmia 21. fui}
VcoV?fu dato] V data 22. edin] P,CheinV *et in volere] V piaciere 28. E veio]
V Che vegio Ch, V2 E veggio 2. voi] V*vo 25. ’specto] V spero V* spetta 26.
ne lo) lacking in P, Ch, V2? 27. a piacere-di] V edipiaciere a 8. sor] V sovra
avete] lacking in P.
iii. Valor sor l’altre avete
e tucta caunosenca; $0
null’ omo non poria
vostro pregio contare:
di tanto bella sete,
secondo mia credenca,
nonn é donna ke ssia $5
alt’ a si bella pare;
né c’agia insegnamento
di voi, donna sovrana.
La vostra ciera humana
mi da conforto, e facemi allegrare: 40
allegrare — mi posso, donna mia;
piu conto mi ne tegno tucta via.
29. Valor sor] V Valore sovra 930. null’] V chanull non] lackinginV 8s8. di]
V che Ch Deo tanto] V? tanta bella] V*belta 386. V chagiatantebelleze 37. c’agia]
V tanto Vike gia 38. di] Vinver 40. conforto] V comfortamento facemi] Ch, V?
fammi 41. allegrare} V eseo presgiare mi] V vi mia} Vfina 42. mi] Chme ne] lacking
92 Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and ‘‘ Rex Fredericus”’
in V tucta via] Ch vita mia lacking in V*. In V there follow two additional stanzas of doubtful
authenticity: A tutora vegio esento . edonne grarasgione . chamore miconsente . voi gentile
criatura . giamai nonno abento . vostra bella fazone . cotanta valimente . pervo sono fresco
ongnora’ Alsole riguardo lovostro bello viso . chema damore priso . etengnolmi jngrande
bonaventura . pero atutora . chi albuono sengnore crede . pero sono dato alavostra merzede.
— MErze pietosa agiate . dimeve gientile cosa . chetuto ilmio disio . eciertto bene faccate .
alente piu cherosa . checio chio piu colio . evoi vedere sovente . lavostra dolze vista . achui
sono ublicato . core ecorppo donato . alora chio vividi primamente . mantenente fui jnvostro
podere . che altra donna mai nonvolglio avere.
Ii
i. “‘Dolze meo drudo e vaténe;
meo sire, a Dio t’acomando,
ché ti diparti da mene
ed io tapina rimanno.
Lassa! la vita m’é noia, 5
dolze la morte a vedere,
ch’io nom penssai mai guerire
menbrandome fuor di gioia.
Membrandome che ten vai,
lo cor mi mena gran guerra; 10
di cio che piu disfai
il mi tol lontana terra!
Or se ne va lo mio amore
ch’io sovra gli altri ’amava;
biasmo la dolze Toscana, 15
che mi diparte lo core.”
All MS readings here given are those of V, the only MS in which the poem occurs. 8. fuor di
gioia] fuoridinoia 12. tol] tolle 15. biasmo] biasomomi de
iii. ‘‘Dolcie mia donna, lo gire
nonn é per mia volontate,
ché mi convene ubidire
quelli che m’a ’m potestate. 20
Or ti comforta s’io vaio
e gia nom ti dismagare,
ca per null’ altra, d’amare,
amor, te nom falseragio.
—— -_
Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “‘ Rex Fredericus”’
iv. Lo vostro amore mi tene
ed Ami in sua sengnoria,
ca lealmente m’avene
d’amar voi sanza falsia.
Di me vi sia rimembranza,
non mi pigliate ’n obria;
c’avete in vostra balia
tutta la mia disfanza.
28. null’ altra} nulla laltra 2. falseragio] faseragio
lealmente] lealemente 980. pigliate}] agiate 32. tutta] tuta
v. Dolze mia donna, ’] commiato
domando sanza tenore;
che vi sia racomandato
che con voi riman mio core:
cotal’ é la ’namoranza
degli amorosi piacieri
che non mi posso partire
da voi, donna, il leanza.”’
88. T] lo 86. riman mio] rimane lo mio
IV
i, Qi llasso, nom pensai
si forte mi paresse
lo dipartire di madonna mia.
Poi ch’io m’alontanai,
ben paria ch’io morisse,
menbrando di sua dolze compangnia.
E gia mai tanta pena non durai
senon quanto a la nave adimorai;
ed or mi credo morir certamente
sed a llei no ritorno prestamente.
ii, Tutto quanto eo via
si forte mi dispiace
25. mi] che mi
93
30
35
40
10
94 Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “‘ Rex Fredericus”’
che non mi lassa im posa i’ nesun loco;
si mi stringe disia
che no posso aver pace, 15
e fami reo parere riso e gioco.
Menbrandomi suo’ dolze ’nsengnamente,
tucti diporti m’ escono di mente;
e non mi vanto ch’io disdocto sia,
senon 1a ov’ é la dolze donna mia. 20
1. Hasso] LRiasso 4. Poi] Vda poiZRa poi alontanai] V,LRalontai 9. morir]
V,LRmorire 10. seda llei) V sedallei LR sedallei 18. nesun] V nesu 14. stringe]
V, LR distringe 17. suo] LR luo
wi. O Deo, como ful matto
quando mi dipartivi
la ov’ era stato in tanta dengnitate!
E s’io caro I’acatto,
e sciolglio come neve, 25
pensando c’altri l’aia ’m potestate.
Ed e’ mi pare mille anni la dia
ched io ritorni a voi, madonna mia;
lo reo pensero si forte m’atassa
che rider né giucare non mi lassa. 30
iv. Kanzonetta gioiosa,
va la, fior di Soria,
a quella c’aA im presgione lo mio core;
di’ a la piu amorosa
ca per sua cortesia 35
si rimembri del stio servidore,
quelli che per suo amore va penando,
mentre non faccia tutto il suo comando;
e priegalami per la sua bontate
ch’ella mi degia tener lealtate. 40
22. dipartivi] V dipartive 25. sciolglio] V scolglio LR scolglo 26. potestate] LR
podestate 29. forte] LR forto 30. rider] V, LR ridere giucare] LR giocare $1.
Stanza ivtslackingin LR $2. va la, fior] MS valafiore 383. im presgione lo mio core ]
MS lo mio core im presgione $8. faccia] MS faccio 40. tener] MS tenere
Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “‘ Rex Fredericus” 95
NOTES !
Porm I: DE LA MIA DISIANZA
MS: V 51 (Imperadore Federigo).
Editions: Valeriani I, 66; Bartoli, Crestomazia, 102; Ulrich, 51; Rag-
nar Oller, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, XVII (1915), 166-188.
Metrical Scheme: 9 lines, 6 + 3; 50 + 38. ABbC, ABbC; cAaCcA.
175 175 555
5 stanzas; collegate.
General note. This is the only one of the poems ascribed to Frederick
and his sons which has previously been published in a critical edition —
that of Oller. Oller’s edition contains exhaustive literary and linguistic
notes.
1. The form disianza, with single s, is restored from the incipit in the
table of contents, in the scribe’s hand.
2. penata for penato, through elision and assimilation, or simple scribal
error.
S. chi is a Meridional form for che.
4. che is to be taken as a demonstrative relative, equivalent to quella che.
6. The emendation lo meo volire is the suggestion of Casini, in the Anno-
taziont.
10. The tut’ of tut’ ora represents the unfortunate custom of the copyist
of V of spelling all forms of tutto with a single t. °
12. The reduction of sonne to sono and the introduction of the Meridional
form so are necessary to restore the metre. In the MS, after the word
alegro, the scribe has written and then crossed out the letters edill.
17. No hiatus after cht.
19. The n of the preposition, which is plainly required by the sense, was
doubtless first assimilated to the r of ranchura, then lost by simplifica-
tion of the double consonant. This is a common phenomenon in Fred-
erician verse.
22. tando is a Meridional form meaning “then.” Cf. A. Gaspary, Due
Siciltanische Dichterschule des 13. Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1878, p. 194.
1 Arabic numerals following the letters which designate MSS indicate the number of the
poem in the MS. Proper names in parentheses after MS references indicate the ascription of
the poem in the MS in question. For explanation of the references to editions or other works
which are given in abbreviated form, and for explanation of the symbols used in metrical
analysis, see E. F. Langley, “The Extant Repertory of the Early Sicilian Poets,’’ Publica-
tions of the Modern Language Association, XXVIII (19138), 454-520.
96 Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and ‘‘ Rex Fredericus”’
28. It will be noted that stanza iv is furnished by the MS in a very corrupt
version. The emendation of ll. 34-35 is that proposed by Casini. For
an explanation of the difficulties of the Passage see Oller, 184-187.
$3. chi = che; cf. note tol. 8.
89. Gaspary (Dichterschule, 192) proposed to read this vers estropé as
follows: Forte mi lia—e tienmi incatenato. Cesareo (1894 ed., p. 192),
suggested a reading: Tienmi in vilia — forte incatenato. We have in-
corporated in our text a third version worked out by Oller, after a sug-
gestion by Tallgren.
42. The suppression of the article in lo suo, instead of accepting synalepha
between the two parts of the verse, is justified by the fact that posses-
sive forms with and without the article were about equally numerous
in the language of this period.
48. inizadore has here the meaning “one who interferes.”
Poem II: Pot KE TTI PIACE, AMORE
MSS: V 177 (Anonymous; five stanzas); P 50 (Rex Fredericus; three
stanzas); Ch 228, Ma 25, V? 8, UB 43b (Lo ’mperadore Federigho; three
stanzas).
Basic MS: P. The choice of P as the basic MS for the construction of
the text of this poem rests on the following facts: (1) P is the older of the
two main MSS in question. (2) It presents a text superior on the whole to
that of V. (3) The orthography of P is the most consistently archaic of any
of the main sources, as evidenced by such forms as the following, culled
from its readings: degia, agia; faronde; vegno, tegna; agto, parti ago;
ke lo meo, tucta via; deio, veio; conpimento, senbianti; ke eo (in hiatus);
ka; omo; sete.
Editions: Giunti, 116; Valeriani I, 54; Nannucci, 20; E. J. Delécluze,
Dante Alighieri, ou la Poésie amoureuse, 264; Monaci, 72; D’Ancona e
Bacci I, 53; Eugenia Levi, Lirica italiana antica, 217; Carducci, Antica
lirica italiana, 23; Targioni-Tozzetti, Antologia della poesia italiana, 14th
ed., p. 61.
Metrical Scheme: 14 lines, 8 + 6; 56+ 54. ABCD, ABCD;
EFFDdGG. $§ stanzas; collegate. T7177 T7717
177 = 4
Orthographical Note: MS V has cie for ce, anza for anga, sgi for gt, ngn
for gn, tuta for tutta or tucta.
General note. Professor Wilkins has pointed out that in its metrical
arrangement, especially the 4-line foot of the fronte, this poem shows some
resemblance to a type of German Lied.!
1 “The Derivation of the Canzone,” Modern Philology, XII (1915), 152.
Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and ‘“‘ Rex Fredericus”’ 97
ttt: The doubling of initial consonants, especially after monosyllables,
is an important phenomenon of the Meridional dialects; cf. llo (1.
14), ssiete (1. 27), ete.
The forms eo and 20 alternate in the MSS; eo is a Meridional form, cf.
meo (fem. mia). It will be noted that ke eo count as two syllables.
The enclitic nde, from C Lat. inde; Mid. Ital. ne.
tucta is one of the Latinisms prevalent in Early-Italian verse.
Hiatus in eo agia. “‘intendimento = intendenza nel significato di amore,
oggetto amato”’ (Nannuccl).
deio is the Meridional form which alternates in the MSS with the
standard forms deggio and (O Ital.) degio.
. The possessive form without the article alternates with the form which
includes the article; cf. 1. 20.
A good case of apheresis, in connection with the Meridional particle
ka.
. The common omission in P, Ch, and V? of the particles ne lo throws
light on the classification of the MSS in connection with the version of
this poem, the three MSS mentioned above being of the same family.
27-28. Cf. G. Faidit (Mahn, Gedichte, 488): Quar vos etz flors e miralhs de
29.
36.
38.
42.
valor — D’autras domnas.
As Tallgren says, “V a la manie de l’hypermétre par voyelles finales
ajoutées”’; this line in V reads thus: Valore sovralaltre avete (9 sylls.).
The scribe of V, not understanding this line, changed it to what
amounts to a gloss of its meaning: chagua tante belleze.
di vot = come voi (D’Ancona e Bacci).
There is what seems to me a certain snobbish finality about this line,
which is one of the reasons which have weighed in my decision to re-
ject the two additional stanzas given in V. Other reasons for such re-
jection are: (1) The additional stanzas are given only in V, whose
readings for this poem are not in general so dependable as those of P.
(2) The version of these stanzas is very corrupt and difficult to decipher
(Monaci: assai guasta). (3) The poem as constituted of three stanzas
gives the impression of a well-rounded entity. (4) All former editors
agree in publishing only the first three stanzas. (5) The collegamento
of the stanzas obtains between all the stanzas excepting only 3 and 4.
Poem III: DoLzE MEO DRUDO E VATENE
MS: V 48 (Re Federigo).
Editions: Monaci, 72; Torraca, Manuale della letteratura italiana, I
(6th ed.), 80; Savj-Lopez and Bartoli, Altitalienische Chrestomathie, 156;
Carducci, Antica lirica italiana, 8.
98 Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “Rex Fredericus”’
Metrical Scheme: 8-line stanza of octosyllabics, 4 + 4; $2 + 82. AB,
AB; CDDC 5 stanzas.
General note. This leave-taking poem, the only one of that specific
type in the whole body of Frederician verse, is written in the form of a dia-
logue between lady and lover; the first two stanzas are spoken by the lady
to her departing lover, whose reply is contained in the remaining three
stanzas. The first two stanzas are, I think, noticeably more popular in tone
than the rest, as if the poet had tried to write in a somewhat fresher man-
ner, but had unconsciously reverted to a more courtly style as the poem
progressed. Or as G. A. Cesareo (La Poesia siciliana sotto gli Sven, Se-
conda edizione accresciuta, Palermo, 1924, p. 395) says: “Re Federigo...
volle comporre una vera canzone drammatica popolaresca sul tema del
commiato; ma non riusci interamente a preservaria dalle gale cortigiane.”
For the metrical form of the poem, we are indebted to Bilancioni and Casini,
who were the first to work out a complete version of the poem on the basis
of an 8-syllable line. In V, opposite the heading, appears, in a later hand,
- the following note: Prima hic Dante nomina Frederigo Cesare.
1. Some editors have conceived of the first line as a question; I prefer to
understand it as a statement, implying resignation of a sort.
2. The reading of the MS is not entirely clear here, the d of acomando
being doubtful; in any case, the B rime is probably a Meridional rime,
Y'acomanno: rimanno.
7. penssai: such a spelling is peculiar to V.
8. gioia: palpable emendation for scribal lapse in repeating noia.
11. di: “with regard to.”
15. “E forte a sospettare che la lezione del testo vaticano sia qui alterata,
imperocché Toscana non rimi con amava, né risponda alla lontana
terra accennata nel verso, che di poco antecede” (Bilancioni).
“Quanto alla lontana terra, ben poteva una donna di Puglia o di
Sicilia chiamar cosi la Toscana, che le allontanava |’amante”’ (Casini).
Since cases of assonance are extremely rare in rime poems in Early
Italian, it may be the case that the text has suffered some alteration
or emendation here; since the poem exists in a single MS, it is impos-
sible to settle that question.
17-20. These lines are significant, and will be considered later, in connec-
tion with the problem of the attribution of the poem. Unless conceived
purely as a fiction, this quatrain could not have been written by the
Emperor, but might well have been written by Frederick of Antioch
on the occasion of his going into Tuscany as his father’s vicar, in 1246
or thereabouts.
24. falseragio: surely a scribal variation for the Meridional form falseravo,
required by the rime.
Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and ‘‘ Rex Fredericus”’ 99
25-28. Note the feudal tone and terminology of this quatrain. One would
expect less of sincerity in a reference of this kind; for the feudal system,
which was the background of the Provencal poets and whose termin-
ology it was natural for them to use, did not obtain in the Kingdom.
$0. pigliate: emendation proposed to replace the MS agiate and to restore
the line metrically (Casini).
$4. tenore: the change to temore proposed by some is unnecessary. Re
Giovanni: “ Rendan le lor castella sanza tinore”’ (Torraca).
$6. MS: checonvoi rimane lo mio core. An interesting example of V’s hy-
permetric readings.
40. w leanza = in lealtd, a feudal formula for swearing.
Porm IV: O1 LLASSO, NOM PENSAI
MSS: V 49 (Rugierone di Palermo); ZR 118 (Rex Federico; $ stanzas).
Basic MS: The two MS versions are very close together. The second
half of ZR, in which this poem occurs, was written by the same hand as
MS V (Tallgren calls it “)’’), probably somewhat earlier. Since the spelling
of LR is more consistent and more archaic, we shall consider ZR as the
basic MS, at least in the matter of orthography.
Editions: Allacci, 512; Valeriani, I, 121; Nannucci, 58; Ulrich, 56;
Monaci, 74; Carducci, Aniica lirica italiana, 9; Butler, 63; Targioni-Toz-
zetti, Antologia della poesia italiana, 14th ed., 74.
Orthographical Note: MS V spells fortte, ciertta, etc.
Metrical Scheme: 10 lines, 6 + 4; 50 + 44. ABC, ABC; DDEE.
77 =
In stanzai, E=A. 4 stanzas (Commiato= stanza lacking in LR). Com-
mato.
General note. I have been unable to locate, nor does Nannucci indicate
a possible Provengal original for the poem referred to by Gaspary (Dichter-
schule, 91): “Interessanter wire die Canzone Rugerone’s von Palermo:
“Qi lasso, non pensai,’ wenn sich nicht etwa einmal auch von dieser heraus-
stellt, dass sie ein provenzalisches Original hat.”
2. paresse is doubtless the Tuscanized form of a Meridional parisse,
which would rime perfectly with the morisse of 1. 5.
13. The value of the double consonant in lassa is doubtful; V spells lascia.
17. The original rime of ll. 17 and 18 was probably one in -enti, the normal
Meridional termination in both words.
24. si is intensive, “surely, indeed.”
29. atassare: far rimaner diaccio, “to chill’ (Cesareo, 1924 ed., p. 282).
$1. Stanza iv is lacking in LR.
100 Poems Ascribed to Frederick II and “ Rex Fredericus”’
$2. This line has been read in various ways by editors of the poem (Monaci:
33.
34.
39.
va’ la fior di Soria; Nannucci: Va’ alla fior di Soria; Butler: va la,
fuor di Soria). Nannucci has the following rather unconvincing note:
“‘La donna, dalla quale il poeta si duole d’esser lontano, come appare
da questo verso, era partita con la Crociata per la Soria.” Butler
notes: “The poem is obviously addressed to a lady at home, and
not to any ‘flower of Syria.’ The alteration of one letter which I
have made restores the right sense.” Gaspary (Dichterschule, 91):
“‘Borgognoni meint allerdings, Soria sei hier fiir die Bezeichnung der
Landschaft von Sora in Unteritalien zu halten; denn es sei nicht denk-
bar, dass der Dichter sich in eine Sarazenin verliebt und ihr sicilian-
ische Gedichte ins Morgenland gesendet habe; diese Einwinde jedoch
schwinden wenn man nur an die wunderbare Geschichte Jaufre Rudel’s
denkt; die Grifin von Tripolis war doch auch keine Sarazenin, und
Rugerone konnte einen Kreuzzug mitgemacht und die Liebe zur Blume
Syriens mit nach Hause gebracht haben.”’ The editor has in the pres-
ent text proposed a reading which differs from any of these but which
is more nearly a literal rendering of the MS and which he thinks 1s
therefore worthy of consideration.
The inversion in this line in the MS is doubtless due to carelessness on
the part of the scribe.
faccia: the emendation by changing a single letter seems to be natural,
and one necessary to restore the meaning.
priegalami: the diphthongized form is probably due to a Tuscan copy-
ist. Where there are two or more MS versions, it is almost always pos-
sible to find one or more undiphthongized forms.
OBERLIN COLLEGE.
wom
NOTES :
ns
._ ¢© j# ® @ #
.
PUBLIC READINGS OF NEW WORKS: IN-MEDIAEVAE °°"
UNIVERSITIES
AN interesting practice in the mediaeval universities, which appears to have
hitherto been little known or noted in modern accounts.of them, is that-of
public recital by the author before the entire academic body, beth faculty
and students, of a newly composed work. During the.past year 1 have ryn-
across three — or rather, five — instances of this’ custom,’ alt from ‘the -
thirteenth century, and it would seem to have been a not uncommon
observance.
Buoncompagni da Signa, the somewhat bumptious author of numerous
works on rhetoric, letter-writing, legal papers, and Ciceronian subjects,! in
1215 a.p. recited his Rhetorica antiqua (Old-Fashioned Rhetoric) “in the
presence of all the professors of canon and civil law, and other doctors, and
@ numerous multitude of scholars,” at Bologna, where it was forthwith
“approved and crowned with laurel.” 2? In 1226 the same work was read at
Padua before the doctors and students, the papal legate, and the bishop and
chancellor of Milan. In 1235 the Rethorica novissima (Rhetoric Up-to-Date)
was similarly read at Bologna. Buoncompagni says in the preface: “‘So I
finished this rhetoric at Bologna, where, in the presence of the venerable
father, Henry, bishop of Bologna, master Tancred, archdeacon and chan-
cellor, the chapter and clergy of Bologna, and in the presence of the doctors
and scholars in residence at Bologna, it was found worthy of the glorious
honor of being solemnly recited in the cathedral. But while it has thus been
1 In addition to the two rhetorics presently to be mentioned, he wrote treatises with the
following titles: Quingue salutationum tabulae; Tractatus dictionum; Notulae aureae; Oliva (con-
cerned with privileges and confirmations); Cedrus (or, notitia generalium statutorum); Myrrha
(instructions how to draw up wills); Breviloquium; Isagoge (or, epistule introductorie); Bone
compagnus (referred to in the preface of the Rethorica novissima: “In the book which I called
by my name, Boncompagnus, and in epistolary style made my chief heir”); Palma (ed. Carlo
Sutter, 1894); Rota Veneris (or, How to Write Love Letters: extracts were printed by E. Monaci
in Aft: d. Reale Accad. det Lincei, Ser. 1V, Rendiconti, V (1889), 68-77; Liber amicitiae (in
which he distinguishes twenty-six kinds of friends; ed. Sarina Nathan, Rome, 1909); De
malo senectutis et senii (ed. F. Novati, Atti d. Reale Accad. dei Lincei, Ser. V, Rendiconti,
Classe di scienze morali, storiche, e filologiche, I (1892), 49-67.
2“... Yrecitatus, approbatus, et coronatus lauro Bononiae . . . a.d. 1215, sept. kal. apr.
coram universitate professorum iuris canonici et civilis et aliorum doctorum et scholarium
moltitudine numerosa’’: quoted by G. Manacorda, Storia della scuola in Italia. Vol.1. Il
medio evo. Parte ii. Storia interna della scuola medioevale italiana nel medio evo (Milan,
1914), pp. 260, 261, from 34S. H. 13 of Archivio Capitolane di S. Pietro.
102 Notes
solemnly approved, of still greater authority will be its present use, which
vil] display the favor proper to the work.” !
“Mety similar Wordibg i is employed by Master Lawrence of Aquileia con-
-cerning- his .work on the-Ars dictamen, dedicated to Philip the Fair, king of
“*Franée: compliéted st. Paris during the pontificate of Boniface VIII,? and
approved by the masters and scholars of the University of Paris. He says:
“And granted that in the presence of the masters and scholars in residence
at Paris the present compilation has merited to be decorated with the glory
of sotemn recitation and has been solemnly approved, yet greater (will re
the plory)-of present atility which will show perpetual favor to the wor
: :Qus third example ‘of. a public reading of a new work is the most inter-
: Sane since tld Hdok réad was a history, a subject which we do not think
of as having been taught in the mediaeval universities. The first chair of
history in a university is said to have been that occupied at Milan towards
the close of the fifteenth century by Giulio Emilio Ferrari. However that
may be, in 1262 Rolandinus of Padua read through his History of the
Trevisan Mark in the presence of various doctors and magistrates, whose
names he lists individually, and of the undergraduate body of the Univer-
sity of Padua.‘ Rolandinus lived from 1200 to 1276. His father had already
gathered materials towards a history of the Trevisan Mark and turned
them over to his son when he was twenty-three years of age. Rolandinus
carried the story down to 1260. When he had finished the recital of his
work, the regents, “skilled doctors in philosophy and natural science,’’ and
““professors, useful and vigilant in grammar and rhetoric, who had been
especially gathered for this purpose, applauded, approved, and solemnly
authenticated the said book or Chronicle by their magisterial authority.”
Rolandinus was himself a doctor of grammar and rhetoric, according to an
epitaph given by Scardeone.® His preface was printed by Mittarelli in 1779°
1 ] have translated the passage from the Latin text as printed by Aug. Gaudenzi, Biblio-
theca ruridica medit aevi, Bologna, 1888-1901. Concerning Buoncompagni da Signi one may
consult further Carlo Sutter, Aus Leben und Schriften des magister Buoncompagnus. Ein Beitrag
zs. ttal. Culturgeschichte im 13. Jhrt., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894.
? Therefore it may possibly have been completed in one of the first years of the fourteenth
rather than during the thirteenth century. The work is contained in a well-preserved manu-
script of the fifteenth century in the Laurentian Library at Florence, Gaddi relig. 129, fol. 103
et seq.
H “Et licet in praesentia magistrorum et scholarium Parisius commorantium praesens
compilatio solemnis recitationis meruerit gloria decorari et solemniter fuerit adprobata, maior
tamen exsistentis utilitatis quae operi favorem perpetuum exhibebit.”
4“... praesenti etiam societate baccalaureorum et scholarium liberalium artium de
studio paduano.”’
§ Bernardinus Scardeonius, De antiquitate urbis Patavii, et claris civibus Patavinis (Venice:
Valgrisi, 1558), and later editions.
© Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum monasterit S. Michaelis Venetiarum prope Murianum
(Venice, 1779), cols. 1023, 1024.
Notes 103
in connection with a description of a fourteenth-century manuscript! of
his history, formerly in the library of the monastery of S. Michele, Murano,
near Venice. The Chronicle was printed at Venice in 1636, and again in
Muratori’s Scriptores, vol. VII.
It seems evident that the public readings which we have noted were
special occasions and not ordinary lecture courses. It would even seem that
the whole work was read through at one sitting, which must have been a
rather prolonged one. Possibly portions of the work were taken for granted. |
In the days before printing perhaps no more satisfactory form of publica-
tion could have been devised than this of solemn, ceremonial recital in the
presence of dignitaries and the general academic community, whose loyal
support of its individuals’ efforts is a good example of mediaeval community-
spirit and solidarity. The crowning of authors with laurel long before the
time of Petrarch, and the association of history with grammar and rhetoric
in the mid-thirteenth century, suggest that many things predicated of the
Italian Renaissance date well back into the preceding mediaeval centuries.
LYNN THORNDIKE,
Columbia University.
A NOTE ON A NOTE TO A NOTE
[In a note originally written to explain to the Managing Editor an apparent
bibliographical inconsistency, Professor Thorndike has effected a happy re-
conciliation between mediaeval natural history, the New Learning of the
Italian Renaissance, and the modern science of bibliography. Delighted
by this note to the two last references in footnote 1 of Public Readings
of New Works in Mediaeval Universities (p. 101, above), the Managing
Editor prevailed upon the author to consent to publication.]
The variant forms used in the citation of publications of the Reale Ac-
cademia dei Lincei printed above in footnote 1, p. 101, perhaps calls for a
brief explanatory note. The old Academy of the Lynxes, so named because
the scientists forming it hoped to emulate the fabulous powers of vision
ascribed to the lynx by their penetrating observation of nature, was founded
at Rome in 1603, but became extinct in 1651. In 1801 it was revived by the
Accademia fisico-matematica which thereupon changed its designation to
Accademia de Nuovi Lincei. By 1804 the feeling of novelty had sufficiently
worn off for the lynxes to drop the adjective “new” (Nuovi) from the title,
and in 1840 this second academy of the lynxes ceased to exist. But in 1847
Pope Pius IX again revived it, this time with a still different name, Acca-
demia pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei. In 1870 the Reale Accademia dei Lincer
1 Codex 176.
104 Notes
came into being, and is the one whose publications are cited above. The
papal society continued, however, refusing to be entirely supplanted. As
for the Reale Accademia dei Lincei, in 1875 it branched into two sections:
Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali and Classe di scienze morali,
storiche e filologiche. But while these two sections issued separate Memorve
in the Att: of the joint society, their Rendiconti were issued in one publica-
tion previous to 1892. But then, beginning with the Fifth Series, we have
two different Rendiconti published by the two above-named sections of the
academy. All which goes to show that, though a leopard cannot change his
spots, a lynx can change his name as well as see through solid objects, and
that, though not as long-lived as the phoenix, he rises again from his ashes
more frequently. Lynn THORNDIKE
Columbia University.
GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS ON INDO-GERMANIC
PHILOLOGY
In the year 1188, the archdeacon and royal chaplain, Giraldus Cambrensis,
returned from England to his native Wales at the command of Henry II to
preach the Third Crusade and, in company with Archbishop Baldwin, spent
over a month in touring the country. The events of the journey and the
observations which the archdeacon made at the time were published a few
years later in companion volumes, the [tinerartum Kambriae and the Descriptio
Kambriae.! The two books give much interesting information about the
topography of Wales, the customs and the temper of the people; and in
one passage in each book Giraldus turns aside to comment on their language
and its relation to other languages with which he is familiar. The first pas-
sage (Itinerarrum Kambriae, i, 8, ed. cit., pp. 75-78) tells of a priest named
Eliodorus, who, at the age of twelve, took refuge from his schoolmaster’s
rod in a hollow on the bank of a river, and so made the acquaintance of two
elves, who conducted him to their twilight country beneath the earth; he
spent a considerable time with them, returning at intervals to the upper
world to visit his mother, but finally he incurred their displeasure by trying
to steal the golden ball of the elf-king’s son, and so lost the way of return.
However, he retained the memory of their language, and was still able in
his old age to quote certain phrases of it to the Bishop of St David’s.
Giraldus reproduces two of these phrases, noting the similarity of certain
words of this ‘other-world’ language both to Greek and to Welsh, and then
goes on to make some interesting philological comments:
Erant autem verba, sicut ab episcopo praedicto mihi sunt saepe proposita,
Graeco idiomati valde conformia. Cum enim aquam requirebant, dicebant Ydor
1 Giraldi Cambrensis Itinerarium Kambriae et Descriptio Kambriae, ed. J. F. Dimock,
London, 1868 (Rolls Ser., X-XJ, vi).
Notes 105
ydorum; quod Latine sonat, aquam offer. Ydor enim aqua eorum lingua, sicut et
Graeca dicebatur: unde et vasa aquatica Ydriae dicuntur: et Duur lingua Britan-
nica similiter aqua dicitur. Item salem requirentes dicebant Halgein ydorum, id est,
salem affer, Hal vero Graece sal dicitur, et haleyn Britannice. Lingua namque Bri-
tannica, propter diutinam quam Britones, qui tunc Troiani, et postea Britones a
Bruto eorum duce sunt vocati, post Troiae excidium moram in Graeciae fecerant, in
multis Graeco idiomati conformis invenitur.!
Hic autem mihi notabile videtur, quod in uno verbo tot linguas convenire non
invenio, sicut in isto. Hal enim Graece, Halein Britannice, Halein similiter Hiber-
nice [sic!]: Halgein, g interposita, lingua praedicta. Item sal Latine, — quia, ut ait
Priscianus, in quibusdam dictionibus pro aspiratione ponitur 3; ut Hal Graece, sal
Latine; hemi, semi; hepta, septem, — Sel Gallice, mutatione a vocalis in e, a Latino;
additione ¢ literae, salt Anglice, sout Teutonice. Habetis ergo septem linguas, vel
octo, in hac una dictione plurimum concordantes (ed. cit., pp. 77-78).
At this point we should note the following passage in the Descriptio
Kambriae (i, 15) in which Giraldus comments upon the difference in tem-
perament between Romans, Franks, and Welsh on the one hand, and Eng-
lish, Saxons, and Germans on the other, and ascribes this difference to the
fact that the last three peoples came from a chill northern region, whereas
the first group all trace their ancestry back to the sunny Troad. The Welsh,
he says, after a long stay in Greece, made their way to the west of Europe,
still keeping the vocabulary of their ancestors and preserving better than
the other nations the purity of the original language; hence the agreement
of a large number of Welsh words with Greek or Latin words:
Tres etenim populi, Romani Enea duce, Franci Antenore, Britones Bruto, post
Troianum excidium,
“‘Reliquiae Danaum atque immitis Achillis,”’
ab Asia in Europam varias ad partes profugerunt. Tribus igitur his nationibus hinc
animositas, hinc nobilitas, et tanta generositatis antiquitas; hinc perspicacis in-
genii subtilitas, et loquendi securitas.
Inter has autem gentes, quae Troiani reliquiae sunt excidii, soli Britones, quia
multis forte post eversionem patriae annorum curriculis in Grecia detenti, tardius in
occiduos hos Europae fines advecti sunt, et primaeva gentis suae vocabula, et ori-
ginalis linguae proprietatem abundantius retinuerunt. .. .
Notandum etiam, quod verba linguae Britannicae omnia fere vel Graeco con-
veniunt vel Latino. Graeci Ydor aquam vocant, Britones Duur; salem Hal, Bri-
tones Halein; Mis, Tis, pro ego et tu, Britones autem Mi, Ti; Onoma, Enou;
Penta, Deca, Pimp, Dec. Item Latini frenum dicunt, et tripodem, gladium et lori-
cam; Britones froin, trebeth, cledhif, et lhuric: unico unig, cane can, belua beleu
(ed. cit., pp. 1938-194).
Giraldus’s theory as to the reason for this resemblance — the sojourn
of the Trojans in Greece — need not detain us, bound up as it is with the
story of the descent of the Britons from the Trojan Brutus, which persisted
1 In this paragraph we may have a remnant of a dream where the learning which the
schoolmaster was trying to put into young Eliodorus’s head got mixed up with fairy lore that
he had heard at home.
106 Notes
so strangely and so long. His etymologies, or rather his observations on
what are, or what seem to him to be, related words are, however, of in-
terest. He could scarcely be expected to recognize froin, trebeth, and lhuric
as borrowings from Latin at the time of the Roman supremacy in Britain,
but he deserves much credit for identifying at all frénum with froin (New-
W. frwyn), tripedem with trebeth (New-W. trybedd), and lérica with lhuric
(New-W. Ulurig).1 At first sight, one is tempted to group unig with the
Latin loans froin, trebeth, and lhuric, but Sir Morris Jones does not seem to
regard it as such. Unfortunately the radical vowel u does not help us
greatly in determining this point since Latin u appears as a rule as u in
loan words into Welsh (e. g. Lat. purus, Welsh pur) and the Welsh develop-
ment of Idg. oi is also u (e. g. *oinos> Welsh un, ‘one’); the suffix -ic (New-
W. -tg), too, is common to Latin and Welsh, but unig is almost surely a
native formation from the numeral wn, itself certainly native.”
In bringing together gladius and cleidhib (New-W. cleddyf) Giraldus is
treading on dangerous ground as the precise relation between these words
is still debatable. (Irish claideb appears to be a loan from Welsh.) Modern
opinion tends, however, to support the theory that there is a connection
here.? Welsh beleu ‘marten’ (var. bele, pl. belawon, balawon) is not, as Giral-
dus thought, related to Lat. bellua (belua) ‘beast’ but rather to Lat. feles
‘cat’4; but this is an error into which he would have almost certainly fal-
len. On duur and tdwp, too, he has been led astray by a dialectal form:
duur (New-W. dwr) ‘water’ is a by-form of dwfr, Irish dobar, and Conti-
nental Gaulish *dubron preserved in the river-names Vernodubrum (the
Verdouble) and Dubra (the Tauber).5 Giraldus’s etymology reminds us
rather of the d\wxné, lopex, oper, pex, fex, for sort of thing! When Giraldus
would associate W. can (New-W. cann) ‘white’ with Lat. canis ‘dog,’ we
1 L. Mtihlhausen, ‘Die lateinischen, romanischen, germanischen Lehnwirter des cym-
rischen’ in Festschrift Ernst Windisch (Leipzig, 1914), Nos. 105, 127, and 217 (pp. 283-309).
Giraldus’s spelling froin is suspicious and suggests rather the modern ffroen ‘nostril’ than
fruyn (New-W. ffrwyn) ‘bridle’; but his Welsh orthography is not the best, and such an in-
accuracy or irregularity may be attributed well enough to a lack of real knowledge of the
language on which he is reporting. Trybedd is taken by Mtihlhausen— and probably correctly
—as coming from the adj. tripedem rather than from the subst. tripodem as Giraldus
gives it.
2 Cf. J. Morris Jones, A Welsh Grammar, Historical and Comparative (Oxford, 1915S), pp.
98, 96, and 257.
3 A. Walde, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wérterbuch (2nd ed., Heidelberg, 1910), under
gladius (see also clades).
¢ Walde, op. ctt., under feles.
5 H. Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik d. Keltischen Sprachen (Gottingen, 1913S), I, 35-
86; for river-names see especially G. Dottin, La Langue Gauloise (Paris: Klincksieck, 1920),
pp. 88-89. On the affiliations of twp, see Walde, op. cit. under unda, and W. Prellwits,
Etymologisches Wérterbuch d. griech. Sprache (2nd ed., Gottingen, 1905), s. 0.
Notes 107
have something still more curious. The Welsh word for ‘dog’ is ci, pl. cton
(Irish cu, céin), cognate of the Latin canis; W. can ‘white,’ on the other
hand, is a cognate of Lat. candeo.1 What Giraldus seems to have done, is to
confuse canis ‘dog’ with cdnus ‘white’; but how this happened in his
particular case might be difficult to explain. But in noting the similarity of
halein (New-W. halen) ‘salt’ and &s with the cognates in Latin, French,
English, and “Teutonic’”’ (Dutch); enou (New-W. enw) ‘name’ and dvoua;
unig, ‘sole’ ‘only’ with unicus; the pronouns of the first and second persons;
and the numerals, he is on absolutely firm ground and is anticipating the
discoveries of nineteenth-century philologists.?
Giraldus’s achievements are all the more remarkable when we consider
them against the background of twelfth-century knowledge. Living in an
age when members of the inferior clergy read Dominus his opus habet as
Dominus hisopus (hyssop) habet, or in diebus ils as in die busillis (Busillis
being supposedly a king or other important personage), and even an abbot
was guilty of such slips as Non est tuum vir; Ubi sunt tuas vaccas? *, Giraldus
was able to write a correct and pleasing Latin style, and to adorn his pages
was with a large number of quotations from Latin authors. With French he
equally at home, so that, rather oddly, on his visit to Wales his stirring ser-
mons were delivered to the people in French and Latin rather than in his
mother-tongue.* In his student days at Paris, and later at the court of
Henry II, he must have met men of many other nationalities, and their
widely varying speech furnished him with abundant material for compara-
tive study. His ear was keenly sensitive to resemblances and differences in
sound — he notes, for instance, that the language of North Wales is purer
than that of the South,® and that the speech of Cornwall and Brittany is in
his day still sufficiently like Welsh so that it can in the main be understood
by Welshmen *— and he is quick to catch up such words as the Middle-
1 Walde, op. ett., under candeo (cf. cdnus and canis).
2 E. A. Freeman, in his History of the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1876), V, 579, calls him
*‘the father of comparative philology.” In a note on one of the lectures on Comparative Polt-
tics (London, 1878, pp. 486-488) Freeman discusses both the passages quoted above (with
the erroneous statement that both are from the Itinerartum Kambriae), and says that Teu-
tonice “ must refer to some form of Low Dutch.” On this last cf. p. 108, n. 1, below.
® Gemma Ecclesiastica, D. ii, 85-86 (Rolls Ser., X XI, ii, $41-$48).
4 De Rebus Gestis, ti, 18 (Rolls Ser., XXI, i, 75, 76) and Itinerartum Kambriae, i, 11 (Rolls
Ser., XXT, vi, 83).
5 Giraldus must refer here to the differences which exist (and existed) between the north-
ern and southern dialects. These differences were, so far as we know, slight both in respect to
vocabulary and treatment of the sounds (see Morris Jones, op. cit., p. 6); still, a northern
speaker in Vendotia or Powys may have commented adversely to him on the speech of the
Southerners of Demetia and Gwent!
8 Descriptio Kambriae, i, 6 (Rolls Ser., XXI, vi, 177).
108 Notes
Dutch sout ' and the French sel and to group them with the languages that
he already knows. In giving halein as the Irish equivalent of Welsh halein
his memory has played him false; Irish, like Latin, retains in general the
Indo-European initial s- before a vowel and, for the Welsh halein, had and
still has salann ‘salt.’ ?
His equipment in Greek was probably extremely meager. “The scanty
references to Greek literature [in his works],” says a modern biographer,
“‘seem to have been filtered through a Latin translation;” * and his know-
ledge of individual Greek words may have come to him by a similar round-
about route. Yet he uses these few Greek words to demonstrate a striking
similarity between Greek and Welsh. This similarity is particularly inter-
esting to the philologist of to-day because the two languages seem to have
followed the same line of development from Indo-Germanic, at least in so
far as both change an original initial s- before a vowel to the aspirate (4s,
halein), and both shift the difficult velar sounds to p (révre, pump).*
One wonders if it was not Priscian who first opened the Welshman’s
eyes to this similarity. Giraldus’s statement that the Latin s takes the place
of the Greek aspirate is frankly quoted from Priscian; indeed all his ex-
amples are found in the two passages of that writer’s Institutiones Gram-
maticae® that discuss the matter:
i, 42. saepe pro aspiratione ponitur (s] in his dictionibus, quas a Graecis sumps!-
mus, ut ‘semis,’ ‘sex,’ ‘septem,’ ‘se,’ ‘sal’: nam fuov, %, érré, & ds apud illos
aspirationem habent in principio.
xiii, 25. et in aliis enim dictionibus quibusdam solent Aeolis sequentes vel in
digamma vel in s convertere aspirationem: fuov ‘semis,’ &€ ‘sex,’ érré, ‘septem.’
It is noteworthy that the word &s, which Giraldus takes as the starting-
point of his observations, occurs in the first of these passages, and that
several other Greek words which Giraldus lists are to be found in Priscian:
“Svoua’ (11, 22), ‘wevrexaliexa .. . decem et quinque’ (xvii, 172).
Mis and tis, which Giraldus gives as the Greek equivalents of ego and
tu, have so far refused to disclose their origin to editors. Freeman conjec-
tures that Giraldus may have picked up the New-Greek plurals eis “we’
1 Freeman’s conjecture that Teutonice referred to “‘some form of Low Dutch” (p. 107,
n. 2, above) is correct. Sout, cited by Giraldus, is a Middle-Dutch form of the modern zut
‘salt’; cf. Franck’s Etymologisch Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (2nd ed., ’s-Gravenhage,
1912), under zout.
2 On the treatment in Celtic of Idg. initial s- before a vowel, see Morris Jones, op. cit., pp.
133-134, and Pedersen, op. cit., I, 70-72.
3 Henry Owen, Gerald the Welshman (London, 1904), p. 4.
‘ On the Idg. labio-velars in Celtic, see Morris Jones, op. cit., pp. $ and 127, and Peder-
sen, op. cit., I, 126.
5 Ed. H. Keil—M. Hertz, Grammatici Latini (Leipzig, 1859), Vols. II, IIT.
ee —_e a ee
Notes 109
and gets ‘ye’ from an Italian sailor;! but this explanation, while barely
satisfactory for mis, fails utterly to provide for és. It may be a significant
coincidence that mzs and tis are correctly cited in the thirteenth book of
Priscian’s grammar—not, to be sure, as forms of the Greek pronoun, but as
the Latin equivalents of éuofs and cots. After pointing out that the Greek
genitive in -ovs corresponds to the Latin in -zs in words like Anpoo6évous,
Demosthenis; ‘Epyoyévous, Hermogenis, Priscian continues (xiii, 4): sic ergo
éuod, gov, ov, ‘met, tui, sui,’ ‘uods’ 5€ ‘cots ots’ ‘mis, tis, sis’.2 Might not
Giraldus’s recollection of the passage have been slightly confused, so that
he remembered the archaic and unfamiliar Latin genitives mis and tis as
Greek?
CornELiA C. CouLter and F. P. Maacovn, Jr.
Vassar College. Harvard University.
1 Comparative Politics, pp. 487-488.
2 Even for pets = mis we should have to assume that Giraldus had confused plural with
singular. According to Freeman’s theory Giraldus’s tis would suppose a Middle-Greek *rets;
but the older dialectal 7-forms of the 2nd sg. pronoun (cf. C. D. Buck, Introduction to the
Study of the Greek Dialects, §118 and §120, Boston, 1910) do not appear to have come down
into mediaeval or modern times. Leis (’ecets), the only faintly similar form of a pronoun of the
@nd person, is of course a plural form, of which the sg. (cd, é6) is quite different (cf.
A. Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular (transl. S. Angus, Edinburg, 1912),
§ 185, p. 85.
3 On mis, tis, and sis, see Ferd. Sommer, Handbuch d. lat. Laut- u. Formenlehre (2nd ed.,
Heidelberg: Winter, 1914), pp. 409, 410, where it is pointed out that sis, quoted by Priscian
as = ois, is apparently a ghost-word, not elsewhere recorded. An OLat. Srd sg., sis would,
in any event, have nothing to do with the New-Greek 2nd plu. gets.
REVIEWS
A Hanprout or HELrs To THE Strupy or MEDIAEVAL LATIN
H. P. V. Nunn, An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin (Cambridge: University Press, 1922).
Pp. xiii, 162. 6/-.
SrepHEen GaseLEE, An Anthology of Medieval Latin (London: Macmillan and Co., 1925).
Pp. xii, 189. 7/6 (= G).
Orto Stance and Paut Dirrrica, Vor Latina III: Ausgewdhlte Proben lateinischen Schrift-
tums von 200 n. Chr. bis sur Gegenwart (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1924). Pp. vi, 146. M. 8.80 (= V).
Cuar.es H. Beeson, A Primer of Medieval Latin. An Anthology of Prose and Verse (Chicago:
Scott, Foresman and Co., 1925). Pp. $89. $2.00 (= B).
CuaRLes Upson Cuarx and Josian Beruea Game, Medieval and Late Latin Selections
(Chicago: Mentzer, Bush and Co., 1925). Pp. iv, 242. $1.60 (= C; reviewed below by
Professor Beeson).
Kart Pomeroy Harrineton, Mediaeval Latin (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1925). Pp. xxix,
698. $2.80 (= H; reviewed from page proofs).
Some of us have been maintaining for years that we are living in a new
Middle Age; here is eloquent testimony to a new sympathy on our part for
the elder mediaeval period. Only ten years ago, in teaching Medieval
Latin at Yale, I had to send abroad months in advance for scattered texts
for my classes; there was no good anthology available. And now, sud-
denly, behold six collections, each with its special advantage; and what is
most remarkable, with very little conflict or overlapping. One notes the
Confession of Golias and the Escape of Walter and Hildegund, to be sure,
in four; but each has numerous important unica: Nunn has Adamnan and
Thomas a Kempis; Gaselee, Gildas and Duns Scotus; Clark and Game,
Brendan and Tungdal; Stange and Dittrich, Ruodlieb and Paracelsus;
and Beeson and Harrington each has a host of special attractions.
These books vary greatly, however, in the point of view, the period
covered, the number and length of extracts, and the clientéle at which the
author has aimed. Nunn is a Patristic Greek scholar, whose interest lies |
primarily in Church writers; Gaselee, an English librarian of wide culture
and reading; Stange and Dittrich, Dresden scholars, whose purview covers
literature and theology, as well as history; Beeson, one of Traube’s most
brilliant pupils, a trained medievalist and, in this company, like a pro-
fessional among amateurs; Clark, who taught Latin paleography at Yale
for many years, and Game, a skilled trainer of teachers; and Harrington,
talented editor of Latin lyric poets, approaching the subject from the clas-
sicist’s standpoint. Only Nunn and Beeson confine themselves strictly to the
medieval period; Gaselee even brings us down to a Swiss abbot’s letter of
1916; Stange and Dittrich to Leo XIII; Harrington to Milton; and Clark
——— eee
~~
Reviews 111
and Game to Peter Martyr of Anghiera, friend of Ferdinand and Isabella.
It is hard to compare accurately the amount of text quoted; taking Nunn,
the briefest, as unity, G = 2, C = 24, V = 44, B = 74 and H = 113.
Clark and Game is the most elementary, being even available for high school
seniors; it is the only one with a full vocabulary. Nunn, Stange and Ditt-
rich, Beeson, and Harrington provide footnotes to supplement any large
Latin lexicon; Beeson gives besides a brief vocabulary of common me-
dieval words; Gaselee treats lexicography with a high disdain. My ex-
perience taught me that, at Yale at any rate, a large proportion of my
students (especially graduate students) had successfully met the traditional
requirement for being gentlemen—they had forgotten Latin — and
needed about the same vocabulary help as the ordinary student of Virgil;
and Game and I find by tests with college students that Liudprand, e. g.,
seems harder even than Tacitus.
And now for a brief sketch of each book. Nunn’s is primarily a gram-
mar of Church Latin, with an appendix of 40 closely printed pages of ex-
tracts. This grammar, of Medieval Latin syntax, has copious illustrations
from the Vulgate, but it is not abreast of recent research and publication;
Léfstedt’s monumental commentary on Aetheria, e. g., published ten years
earlier, has not been utilized. Perhaps the most striking feature of this
Latin is, of course, the replacement of the accusative-infinitive construction
in indirect discourse by a quod (quia, quoniam) clause; this goes back to
Plautus (As. 52, Mil. 893); Petronius is fond of it; yet Nunn still quotes
Madvig respectfully against the authenticity of the first Plautus passage.
The quia clause (from which comes the Italian che, Sp. que) is also used by
Petronius (46, 4). But till a scientific grammar of Medieval Latin is writ-
ten, this brief compendium will be of great value to the beginner. Among
the extracts are Jerome’s Ciceronian dream, Bede on the arrival of St
Augustine of Kent, and Thomas Aquinas on the fruits of the Incarnation.
Gaselee’s is a charming piece of bookmaking, beautifully printed, and
quite the thing for an open fire and a well-drawing pipe. It is the fruit of
wide reading, and gives many useful bibliographical hints; a number of
amusing anecdotes and stories testify to a keen sense of humor; and several
of the selections, especially in poetry, come from almost inaccessible sources.
We even have, as frontispiece, Giulio Romano’s lovely Joanna of Aragon,
who is described in the extract from Nifo, De pulchro et amore. Altogether
a delightful book.
Stange and Dittrich’s volume is the first part to appear of a Latin an-
thology in three parts; the editors are connected with the Dresden Gym-
nasium zum heiligen Kreuz, and express a debt of gratitude to Manitius.
It comes nearest to being a connected Literaturgeschichte; numerous para-
graphs, often characterizing authors not represented, provide a fairly com-
112 Reriews
prehensive view of the progress of Latin literature from Minucius Felix to
Leo XIII. These extracts are largely connected with the medieval Ger-
man Empire, but touch the whole field, from Tertullian of Carthage to
Francis Bacon of Verulam. Each section — Merovingian Literature, e. g.,
or The Reformation — has a good summary; and there are brief sketches
(but without adequate bibliography) of each author cited. Many passages
have wide interest, like Symmachus’s eloquent plea for the worship of Vic-
tory, Salvian’s indictment of the Christians, Rosamund’s vengeance on
Alboin, the Strasburg Oaths, the reconciliation between Walter and Hagen,
some of Poggio’s Facetiae, Loyola on true love and Calvin on the Sacra-
ments. It is a handy and well-printed book.
Beeson’s Primer owes its origin to the Committee on Mediaeval Latin
Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies, whose indefatigable
secretary, Professor George R. Coffman, contributes a brief foreword. In
the choice of the selections Beeson was guided in part by suggestions from
this Committee and from scholars outside of the Committee as well; so the
anthology reflects a broad literary and historical interest. Beeson has used
great skill in condensing, particularly in his valuable Introduction, where
Medieval Latin vocabulary, syntax, and versification are handled in a
most practical way. The selections have been standardized in spelling, and
have brief introductions and occasional notes — hardly enough, I fear, for
the ordinary student, often rusty in Latin and without access to a large
dictionary or reference library. As in Harrington, there is a small vocabu-
lary, and the footnotes cover words not in Lewis’s Elementary Latin Dic-
tionary. Too high praise cannot be given the choice of selections. Whether
the student’s interests lie in the medieval drama, the short story, the lyric,
historical writing, he will find examples long enough to be enlightening,
competently chosen and admirably edited. One sees everywhere the hand
of a master. Beeson conceived his task as that of providing an introduction
to further study; but any student who works carefully through these selec-
tions will have already gained a good idea of the wealth of medieval litera-
ture and the peculiarities of the medieval mind. Publisher and editor have
turned out a convenient and well-printed handbook.
Harrington’s Mediaeval Latin is the most monumental and comprehen-
sive of the six. It is astonishing to list the authors not found in the others
— Eugippius, Avitus, Fredegar, Theodulf, Adam of Bremen, Thomas of
Monmouth, to mention only a few — or the different passages, like Gregory
of Tours’s masterly description of Clovis’s disposal of Sigbert and his king-
dom; incidentally be it said that Gregory’s most charming story — the
Two Lovers — is in none of these collections. The material is tabulated as
drawn from European History; the First Crusade; Travel and Anecdote;
Epic, Pastoral and Lyric Poetry; Hymns; Fables; Satire; Drama; Mira-
Reviews 113
cle Literature; Novel; Story Cycles; Epistle; Dialogue; Oratory; Philos-
ophy; Carolingian Renaissance; Italian Renaissance. The Introduction
contains a brief grammar, and the well-written sketch of each author adds
a welcome list of editions. The book is further lavishly illustrated, and
forms a broad introduction to European culture, from Roman to modern
times.
Ten or fifteen years ago I used to be nonplussed how to answer friends
who asked: what books shall I order for my classes for the lectures (or the
course) in Medieval Latin which I am to give next year? All I could do was
to recommend a number of scattered texts hard to obtain. Now advice is
easy. With these six, one has the material for an exhaustive course in me-
dieval literature; any one will be a welcome addition to a college course
in Classical Latin. What we need now, as Beeson says, is a series of well-
edited texts, supplementing Heraeus’s Sammlung vulgdrlateinischer Texte
and Hilka’s Sammlung mittellateinischer Texte (Winter, Heidelberg). I had
arranged, in 1917, to devote the seminar of the American School of Classical
Studies in Rome each year to such a text, beginning with those of special
interest to Rome and Italy; and I feel that the announcement of such a
seminar in one of our large universities would make it a fruitful center for
genuinely cultural studies. Then our students can browse freely in those
lush meadows which hitherto have been the exclusive preserve of a Felix
Dahn or an Anatole France.
CHARLES Upson CLarK.
CuaRg.es Upson Cuark and Josian Betoea Game, Medieval and Late Latin Selections (Chi-
cago: Mentzer, Bush & Co., 1925). Pp. iv, 242. $1.60.
Professor Clark may be considered one of our earliest mediaevalists.
Ten years ago he read Mediaeval-Latin texts with his classes at Yale as
literature worth reading for itself. The few courses in that field that were
given in those days were given by historians and instructors in the modern
languages, unless they could inveigle some accommodating colleague in
Latin, with an elastic conscience, to venture into what many of his fellow
classicists regarded as the slums of literature.
Professor Clark has gone even further. He has had the courage to edit
with Professor Game a textbook of mediaeval selections for the use of
second year high-school students. The authors will undoubtedly receive a
blessing from many a student, who will learn there for the first time that
the dico quod construction, with which he had experimented in his composi-
tion lessons, with disastrous results, is a perfectly logical construction,
though it is doubtful whether he will ever be allowed to think that it is a
respectable one.
The new book contains an admirable series of selections that range
from Jerome, Gregory of Tours, Gregory the Great and Bede to Erasmus
114 Reviews
and Peter Martyr. There are fables from Odo of Sherrington and Romulus,
stories from Petrus Alfonsi, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and others, tales of
St Benedict, St Columban, and St Francis, extracts from Columbus’s Latin
letter and Peter’s account of the voyages of Columbus and Cabot. Poetry
is represented by extracts from the Waltharius and the Carmina Burana,
including the Confession of Golias. The selections have been arranged in the
order of difficulty, ending properly enough with Liudprand. The notes,
which are full and to the point, reveal the hand of a skilled teacher. A com-
plete vocabulary enables the student to dispense with the use of a lexicon;
the English derivatives in the definitions are printed in small capitals.
The book should give the student a clearer appreciation of mediaeval
literature and a comprehension of the continuity of all the European litera-
tures. Incidentally it may be added that one of the best features of the
book is the announcement in the Preface of a forthcoming work by Pro-
fessor Clark on Mediaeval Latin Literature. The need of such a book has
been long felt, and it is a matter for congratulation that the task has now
fallen into such expert hands. Cuartes H. BEESON.
Paut Th. Horrmann, Der mittelalterliche Mensch, gesehen aus Welt und Umwelt Notkers des
Deutschen. F. A. Perthes: Gotha, 1922. Pp. 356.
Tue keynote of this book by a young literary historian, influenced by Gun-
dolf and Bertram, is an earnest desire to understand both the high achieve-
ments and the unavoidable shortcomings of the mediaeval view of life.
It sets out with the thesis that what gave the Middle Ages greatness was
the striving for the impossible: the attempt to escape the body, to flee from
the finite, to live exclusively in the infinite and the spiritual. But it also
acknowledges from the start that what gives the Middle Ages its principal
human charm is the naive compromise with the flesh and the world which
this daring spiritualism after all was forced to make.
This double quality of mediaeval life is vividly brought out in a great
variety of states of mind, institutions, and personalities: in the exaltation
of suffering and the joy of martyrdom; in the interpretation of all natural
phenomena as symbolic of some spiritual truth; in monasticism, with its
glorification of sexless existence and at the same time its cultivation of a
sublimated sensuousness; in church rites and ceremonies standing for
abnegation of self and surrender to the unseen, yet abounding in spectacu-
lar sumptuousness; in the wonderful humanity of St Benedict and his
regula, combining humility, reverence, absorption in the beyond with a
serene, joyful, and robust every-day activity.
From these considerations of a more general character the book pro-
ceeds to a special study of the monastery of St Gall. Five chapters are de-
Reviews 115
voted to giving a many-sided view of its chief characteristics: its geographi-
cal key-position onone of the great highways between the Mediterranean and
the North Sea; its ethnical peculiarity as a meeting ground of Irish, Italian,
and German popular tradition; its architecture, sculpture, ivory work, and
miniature painting; its connection with the rulers of the Empire and the
ducal dynasty of Suabia; its long array of remarkable personalities —
either abbots or monks — from St Gallus down to such men as abbots
Gozbert and Solomon III or the monks Tuotilo, the four Ekkehards, Not-
ker Balbulus and Notker Labeo, after his death called Teutonicus.
The climax of the whole is reached in the chapters on Notker Teu-
tonicus. In him the author seeks to show the converging of all the chief
intellectual and emotional tendencies of the early Middle Ages, analyzed
in the previous chapters. And in his translations from the Psalms, Aristotle,
Boethius, Marcianus Capella, he traces in detail the process of transforma-
tion of Oriental and Graeco-Roman ideas into German thought and feeling
of the end of the tenth century and the beginning of the eleventh.
The book is not without blemishes. Its style is full of mannerisms. Its
thought has a certain visionary, if not hysterical, vagueness which is per-
haps due, in part at least, to the upheaval of intellectual conditions in Ger-
many brought on by the World War. But it is a book of decided sugges-
tiveness and a welcome sign, among many, of a turning away in German
literary research from the merely analytical method to a new synthetic
approach. Kuno FRANCKE.
Calendar of the Fine Rolls, Preserved in the Public Record Office, Volume VI, 1847-1356 (pp.
vii, 620); Volume VII, 1356-1368 (pp. iv, 577); Volume VIII, 1869-1877 (pp. iv, 547).
London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1921, 1923, 1924.
THE Fine Ro1zs, of which the above are the latest Calendars, form one of
the three series of enrolments of writs under the great seal kept by the Eng-
lish Chancery during the later Middle Ages. The title is somewhat deceptive,
for, while the rolls contain records of payments for writs and the Grossi
Fines, the greater part of the entries consist of enrolments of Letters Patent
and Letters Close dealing with matters of more general interest. In the
Calendars the entries relating to payments for writs are omitted. For stu-
dents of mediaeval administrative history the rolls are a primary source of
information. They contain also a certain amount of material of value to
those who are interested in social and economic backgrounds.
During the fourteenth century the Chancery gradually relegated to the
Fine Rolls a large number of writs that had to do with matters relating to
the financial interests of the crown, especially the writs of appointment of
officials whd, though not always tax-collectors, had duties that brought
money into the Exchequer. By the time of the Calendars now under con-
116 Renews
sideration, the enrolment of the writs of appointment of sheriffs, escheators,
keepers of castles and of temporalities, collectors of customs, collectors of
fifteenths and tenths, keepers of towns and other officials with similar duties,
were made on the Fine Rolls. Supplementary instructions to the sheriffs,
escheators and other officials are found in large numbers on the same rolls.
For any study of administrative problems this series is, therefore, of funda-
mental importance.
The student who is not primarily interested in administration will find
also quite a number of enlightening bits of information. Of the services
to be rendered to the king for land there are many quaint examples, not the
least curious being that of a man who held a stew by Stafford, “by the ser-
vice of holding the king’s curry-comb once at his first mounting of his pal-
frey whenever he comes to Stafford’ (VI, 239). There are a number of
references to different kinds of ships and their cargoes, one of which car-
goes rivals a peddler’s cart in its miscellaneous contents (VI, 437-438).
The methods used by those persons who carried gold and silver out of the
realm contrary to the king’s orders are well illustrated (VII, 27). John
Nore, who must have regretted the rumor, is said to have found a treasure-
trove in the form of a pot hidden in the earth “with money in old sterlings
to no small amount”’ (VII, 293). In the roll for 1349 there are strangely few
direct references to the Black Death, though there are, in the writs directed
to escheators, long lists of tenants recently deceased. Even the historian of
manorial institutions will find at times accounts of stock on a manor and
descriptions of the duties of farmers that may be of use to him (VII, 363-
370).
The work of calendaring is up to the usual high standard of Public
Record Office publications, and the indexing is very well done.
JaMES F. WILuarp,
University of Colorado.
La Philosophie au Moyen Age. By Etienne Gilson (Collection Payot), Paris: Payot, 1922.
Vol. I, pp. 160; Vol. II, pp. 159.
Saint Thomas D’ Aquin. By Etienne Gilson (Les Moralistes Chrétiens), Paris: Gabalda,
1925. Pp. 380.
UNTIL quite recently it was the accepted thing to look upon mediaeval
philosophy as an appendix to theological speculation, or at best as con-
taining nothing of significance for modern thought. Sixteenth- and seven-
teenth-century thinkers were in the main responsible for this widespread
attitude. Possessing no critical historical sense and driven by a spirit of
sheer opposition to theories which they looked down upon, they painted
in the darkest possible colors the history of mediaeval thought. No serious
student now can afford to accept as conclusive the judgment of Descartes,
Spinoza, Locke, and others upon Scholasticism without exposing himself
ee
a
Renews 117
to the charge of being ignorant of the work of men like Gilson, de Wulf, and
Grabmann who have brought out successfully the true nature and tre-
mendous influence of the philosophy of the Middle Ages.
Gilson’s La Philosophie au Moyen Age was written expressly to aeeeee
strate that, contrary to popular belief, no chasm exists between ancient
and modern philosophy. A first-hand study of Scholasticism proves not
only that it possessed a remarkable richness and vitality of its own, but that
in the thought of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are found the roots
of every modern philosophy. That we cannot afford, therefore, to ignore the
Middle Ages, is the conclusion of Professor Gilson’s study. ‘Modern
thought cannot ignore its own middle age; to do so is to ignore itself. It
is not enough to say that the thirteenth century is close to us. The thir-
teenth century is in us, and we cannot get rid of it by denying it any more
than a man can deliberately detach himself from his past by merely for-
getting that he has a past (II, 155).”’
La Philosophie au Moyen Age is written with all the lucidity and spright-
liness which the French customarily bring to the most abstruse subjects.
In this work a deep knowledge of the difficult currents of mediaeval thought
is joined to a scholarly appreciation of the importance of individuals and
systems in the history of philosophical thinking. The man who knows
nothing of mediaeval philosophy will be delighted with this volume. The
student will find it a remarkable summary of what he already knows, done
with a freshness and wholesomeness which will send him back to his beloved
thinkers with a renewed and even higher sense of their value for civilization.
The section devoted to the School of Chartres is particularly well done.
Abelard assumes therein his rightful place as a precursor of the more sys-
tematic thinkers of the thirteenth century. The legends which have grown
up about this remarkable man are successfully demolished, and he is pre-
sented not as a caricature of a philosopher but as the convinced and able
Platonist he really was. The influence of the Arabian and Jewish philoso-
phers on Western thought is estimated justly, and the réle which the Uni-
versity of Paris played in the elaboration of mediaeval philosophy is con-
stantly brought before our minds. No single institution has ever exerted
such tremendous intellectual power as Paris, the Alma Mater of every great
philosopher, scientist, and literary man of those times.
The history of the philosophy of the fourteenth century cannot but bring
many a surprise to those who are unacquainted with the prodigious activity
displayed by the thinkers of that age. It was a century of criticism, often
of a very devastating kind. It opened up the way, by the writings of :-:
Ockam, Nicolas of Autrecourt, Peter d’Ailly, and others, to the destruction
of the science of Aristotle, and placed solidly the foundations of modern
astronomy and physics. Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Nicholas Oresmus
118 Reviews
were some of the men who translated philosophical Ockamism into scientific
terms and began an era of experimentalism which in our own day is mani-
festing its true possibilities.
Gilson is a specialist in Thomism. Few writers to-day possess a better
sense of the fundamental significance of the philosophy of the Angelic
Doctor. His most recent book, Saint Thomas D’ Aquin, is devoted exclu-
sively to the ethical teachings of this thinker. In ethics as in metaphysics
St Thomas was an innovator. So novel in fact was his system that it
shocked even the advanced thinkers of the thirteenth century. Augustin-
ianism in theology and Platonism in philosophy had dominated for so long
the intellectual life of mankind that a theology presented in terms of
Aristotelianism seemed to many but an adventure in heresy. St Thomas
proved, however, that a satisfying synthesis of Christian ethics and human-
istic philosophy could be made, and it did not take long for his system to be
accepted, first by the faculty of the University of Paris, and then by every
university in Europe.
The ethics of St Thomas is presented in a series of texts drawn from his
principal writings, the translation having been newly done by Professor
Gilson. The order follows that of the Summa Theologica. The critical
comments are brief, and illustrative of the texts rather than the ideas of
the compiler. With this work in existence there can no longer remain any
excuse for contemporary philosophers pleading ignorance of what the
greatest philosopher of the Middle Ages thought about the problems of
morality. James H. Ryan,
Catholic University of America.
Essays in Mediaeval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout. Edited by A. G. Little and
F. M. Powicke. Pp. ix, 482. Manchester: printed for the subscribers, 1925.
Tuis handsome volume was offered to Professor Tout last October on the
occasion of his seventieth birthday and his retirement from the chair of
history in the University of Manchester, which he held for half a lifetime.
It does fitting honor to one of the most vigorous historical forces of our
time, a great teacher, a powerful stimulator of research in original records,
creator of a school of administrative history which has been compared to
the constitutional history of Stubbs and the legal history of Maitland. Of
the twenty-nine contributors the majority are naturally English, including
eleven former pupils, but there are five Frenchmen, two Americans, a Bel-
gian, and a German — that admirable scholar and loyal friend, the late
Felix Liebermann, whose paper on Nennius is probably the last product of
his pen. Most of the contributions deal, as they should, with administra-
tive, financial, judicial, and parliamentary history, chiefly English but not
ignoring those French relations which Mr Tout has persistently empha-
EY
Reriews 119
sized; and the results in these fields, too numerous to list in detail, alone
would make the volume indispensable to investigators. Municipal history
is touched by James Tait and the new Regius Professor, H. W. C. Davis.
Religious history is represented by Miss Deanesley’s study of the early
familia at Christchurch, R. L. Poole’s fresh treatment of the earliest Eng-
lish cardinals, and A. G. Little’s masterly examination of the Franciscan
provincial chapters. Pirenne has something to say of the internal water-
ways of Flanders in the Middle Ages. The literary themes, Latin and ver-
nacular, treated are: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, patronage under Henry
II, Barbour’s Bruce, and Hugh de Novocastro, the last being from the
master hand of Ch.-V. Langlois. The final number is a list of Professor
Tout’s writings, compiled by Mrs. Tout and filling eighteen pages.
CHARLES H. Hasxms,
Harvard University.
Bulletin Du Cange : Archiuum Latinitatis Medit Aevi. Consociatarum academiarum auspiciis
conditum; digesserunt J.H. Baxter, C. H. Beeson, H. Goelzer, editor, L. Nicolau D’Olwer,
P. Thomas, V. Ussani. Paris: Edouard Champion, 1924-25.
Tuts publication is the official organ of the societies codperating in the
preparation of the new Dictionary of Medieval Latin. It was established
over two years ago by the Comité central under the auspices of the Union
Académique Internationale, which had originated and organized plans by
which learned societies of several pations joined their forces for the re-
vision of Du Cange.
The collaborators in the undertaking include representatives from
America, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, England, France, Holland, Italy, Rou-
mania, Scandinavia, Spain, and Servia. Some of these are working in
groups, scme are isolated workers. The purpose of the new journal is to
- unify and systematize their work, to promote research on problems con-
nected with the Dictionary, to encourage the redaction of texts necessary
to the enterprise, and to serve as a clearing house of information generally.
The international character of the journal is emphasized by allowing
articles to appear in English, French, German, Italian, and Latin.
Up to date, four issues have appeared, at intervals of three months.
Each number has four parts. Part I contains the principal articles, of
which the titles in each number follow: No. 1 — Ch. V. Langlois: “His-
torique sommaire de |’entreprise”; W. M. Lindsay: “Note on the use of
glossaries for the Dictionary of Medieval Latin”; V. Ussani: “‘Lezioni
varie e scolii di classici in servigio del Dizionario medievale.” No. 2— W.
H. Prior: ‘‘Notes on the weights and measures of Medieval England”’ (I);
Biagio Brugi: “‘La ‘Groma Pompeiana’ e 1] testo dei ‘Gromatici veteres.’”’
No. 3 — W. H. Prior: “Notes on the weights and measures of Medieval
England” (II); P. S. Leicht: “Il termine ‘communitas’ in una littera di
120 Reviews
Gregorio II”; A. Silvagni: “Se la silloge epigrafica signoriliana posse attri-
buirsi a Cola di Rienzo” (plate); No. 4—G. Mazzini: “Il Codice Vaticano
latino 3318 della grammatica di Prisciano”; C. Plummer: “Glossary of
Du Cange. Addenda et corrigenda”’ (1st article).
Part II contains briefer articles of a miscellaneous character, e.g.: ““The
Virgil glosses of the Abolita Glossary and the Glossae Virgilianae” by
Robert Weir (No. 2); “‘An emendation to Gunzo” by J. H. Baxter (No. 2);
“The Paris ‘Placidus’” by J. W. Mountford (No. 1); “The Tours and Ven-
déme Manuscripts of the Liber Glossarum” by J. W. Mountford (No. 3);
“Un Manuscrit Inutilisé du Liber Monstrorum” by A. Thomas (No. 4);
“De ‘Sacramentario Leoniano’ denuo edendo”’ by V. de Zanche (No. 4).
Part III is devoted to reviews of recent publications in the field of Medie-
val Latin: No. 1— “Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo
saeculo antiquiores,” by A. Silvagni; “‘La storia di ‘Parochia’ e ‘Plebs,’”
by A. Schiaffini; “‘“Lacto’ nella Volgata,” by A. Vaccari; ‘I testi Tren-
tini dei secoli VI-X,”” by G. Gerola; No. 2— “Die Perfektformen auf
-ere und -erunt. Ein Beitrag zur Technik der spitlateinischen Kunstprosa,”’
by Harald Hagendahl; “La scrittura latina nell’ etA romana,” by Luigi
Schiaparelli; “Raccolta di documenti latini,” (Id.); Eginhard, Vie de
Charlemagne (edited and translated) by L. Halphen; Glossae Medicinales
(ed.) by J. L. Heiberg. No. 3 — ‘‘L’escola poetica di Ripoll en els segles
X-XITI” by Llhuis Nicolau D’Olwer; ‘‘Note Paleografiche. Sulla data
e provenienze del cod. LX XXIX della Bibliotheca Capitolare di Verona,”
by Luigi Schiaparelli; ‘Diploma di Berengario II e Adalberto per il mar-
chese Aleramo (958-961), 25 marzo’ (Id.); “‘Il Codice Ambrosiano del
Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum,” by L. Gramatica and G. Galbiati.
No. 4— S. Aureli Augustint Hipponensis Episcopi Epistolae recensuit .. .
Al. Goldbacher, Pars V, Praefatio Editoris et Indices; “A Study of the
Vocabulary and Rhetoric of the Letters of St. Augustine — A Disserta-
tion,” by Sister Wilfred Parsons, A.M. (The Catholic University of
America, Patristic Studies, Vol. III).
Part IV, the Chronique, furnishes information about current activities
in each nation afhliated with the enterprise. Here appear complete re-
ports of the proceedings of the Comité central in Paris, briefer accounts of
the different national committee meetings, lists of texts being studied in
various centers for the use of the Dictwonary, bibliographical material being
collected, and similar projects being pursued by national or local groups
and individual workers.
No. 1 also contains technical instructions regarding the preparation of
material for the Dictionary for the use of immediate collaborators.
SisTER A. MARGARET,
College of St Catharine.
— ae
Reviews 121
Maorice Ds Wuur, Histoire de la Philosophie mediévale. 5th French ed. Vol. I, pp. viii,
896; Vol. II, pp. $26. Louvain: Institut de Philosophie, and Paris: Alcan, 1925.
SPEcULUM takes pleasure in announcing a new edition of this classic from
the pen of Maurice De Wulf, Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Louvain and at Harvard University. The Histoire dela Philosophie medi-
évale now appears entirely recast and brought up to date in the light of the
numerous publications of recent years. Whole chapters are new, e. g., those
on Latin Neo-Platonism of the thirteenth century, Ockamist philosophy,
and the social philosophy of the fourteenth century. As the author points
out in the preface, he is studying the philosophic movements in their sur-
roundings and in their relations of interdependence with the other factors
of civilization. This study is intended to shed new light on the systems of
thought, whose temporal connections have not hitherto been thoroughly
understood. |
Dr Ernest Messenger has undertaken the English translation of this
work, of which the first volume has just been issued by Longmans, Green,
London.
NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
I
GENERAL SUGGESTIONS
1. All communications intended for publication should be pre-
sented with as much consideration for style as the nature of the sub-
ject will permit.
2. Articles in foreign languages will usually be accepted, but it is
hoped that the authors of such articles will, if expedient, permit an
approved English translation to be substituted.
3. Scholarly articles are often encumbered with superfluous
apparatus in the way of extensive footnotes and quotations from
modern authorities. It is hoped that contributors will try so far as
possible to express such information in their own words, with only
the usual note of reference. Where the writer wishes to give a brief
bibliography, a longer note may be desirable. ;
4. Quotation from primary sources (original texts) is of course
often essential, but even here brevity, in so far as this is compatible
with clearness, should be sought.
Il
TYPOGRAPHICAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL RULES
In the interest of uniformity, clearness, and economy, the edi-
torial board has adopted the following typographical and biblio-
graphical conventions. Since these will be applied to all MSS pub-
lished, contributors are requested to codperate by following these
rules when preparing their MSS. Special cases will receive special
consideration, but it is hoped that contributors will be sparing in
their departures from the regular editorial practice.
1. All MSS must be typewritten, and double-spaced, on only
one side of standard-size (83” X11") paper. Ample margins should
be left on all sides. MSS exceeding four or five pages should not be
folded or rolled.
2. Except for such recognized Anglicisms as shew for show and
-our for -or, the Concise Oxford Dicteonary will be taken as the ortho-
graphic authority.
8. Italic will be used for words and phrases not in the language in
which the article is written, including quotations not exceeding five
or six typewritten lines, which appear in the body of the text (see § 6
below); also for the titles of books and poems, ancient or modern, of
periodical publications, and for the title of manuscripts. Such words,
phrases, passages, or titles, unless italic script itself be used, should
be underscored.
4. Titles of articles 2x periodical publications will be in roman
and quoted. See § 14 below.
5. The following words, phrases, and abbreviations should be
italicized:
ad loc., cap., circa (ca.), et al., cbid., infra, loc. cit., op. cit., passim,
saec. (s.), scilicet (scil. or sc.), sub voce (s. v.), versus (vs.), vide
(v.), v22.,
but not:
col., cf., etc., e.g., ff. (following), fol. (folio), i.e., and p.
6. In the body of the text, quotations in any language of over
five or six typewritten lines will be printed without quotation marks
in small roman as separate paragraphs (see §3 above). In footnotes,
also printed in small roman, quotations will be treated in the same
manner. In typewritten MSS, small roman may be indicated either
by single-spacing or by a vertical line at the side of the quoted
passage.
7. Wherever special type is necessary, a marginal note of instruc-
tion should be added. Full-face should be indicated by a wavy line
under the word or words.
8. It will be of great convenience to the editors if footnotes are
placed immediately below the line which carries the reference num-
ber, and are set off from the text by a line drawn above and below
the note.
9. Reference numbers used for footnotes will be printed con-
tinuously on the page, but not continuously throughout an article.
10. In the citation of references the amount of bibliographical
detail will be left to the discretion of the contributor, but — taking
into consideration the desired omissions — the order of the items
should be presented in the form and order given below. As a rule,
item 5 should not be included in citing books over twenty years old.
Contributors are urged, however, to give full bibliographical data
when referring to out-of-the-way or very rare books, since such in-
formation is often of the greatest help to libraries and to individuals
who may wish to order these titles.
The order of bibliographical items should be as follows: (1) au-
thor’s name, preceded by his initials and followed by a comma; (2)
title (italicized if of a book or periodical, in roman and quoted if of
an article); (3) where necessary, the edition, followed by a comma;
(4) place of publication, followed by a colon; (5) name of publisher
and date of publication; (6) reference to volume (large Roman nu-
merals without preceding “Vol.” or “‘V.”) and page (or column).
Items 3 to 5 should be placed in parentheses. For example:
H. O. Taylor, The Mediaeval Mind (Srd ed., New York: MacMillan, 1919), I, 221.
C. Plummer, “Glossary of DuCange. — Addenda et Corrigenda,” Archiuum Latinitatis
Mediz Acui, I (1925), 225.
11. Where the reference includes the number of the volume, as
in the illustrations given in § 10, the abbreviation “p.” or “col.”
will be omitted; otherwise the page (or column) number should
be preceded by “‘p.” or “‘col.” Folios of MSS should be designated
by ‘fol.’ and described ‘r’ and ‘v’ (not ‘a’ and ‘b’). Both “recto”
(“r’’) and “‘verso” (‘‘v’’) should be specified. For example:
C.H. Beeson, A Primer of Medieval Latin (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1925), p. 45.
W.-H. Maigne d’Arnis, Lexicon Manuale ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Latinitatie (Paris:
Garnier, 1890), col. 1678.
MS. Cotton Vitel. A. XV, fol. 172v.
12. The names of ancient authors appearing in the body of the
text should not be abbreviated, though in footnotes abbreviations
may be used: for Greek, according to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-
English Lexicon (rev. ed., Oxford, 1925), pp. xui-xxxvi; for Latin,
according to Harper’s Latin Dictionary (ed. Lewis and Short), pp.
vii-xi. For example:
Oros., iii, 12, 6.
13. In citing from the works of mediaeval and ancient authors,
use small roman numerals for ‘books,’ Arabic numerals for the
smaller divisions (chapter, section, etc.). Commas, not periods,
should separate these items. For example:
Bede, Historia Eccl., ii, 2.
14. In citing from periodical publications, both volume and year
should be given, the year (in parentheses) following the volume
number. For example:
R. R. Welschen, “Le Concept de Personne selon Saint Thomas,” Recue Thomiste, XXII
(1914), 129 ff.
“Ueberlieferung und Entstehung der Theokrit-Scholien,” Abh.d.kgl. Gesells.d. Wissensch.
zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. K]., N. F., XVII (1921), Nr. 2.
15. Upon first reference, titles should be given amply; in suc-
ceeding references any conventional or easily intelligible abbrevia-
tion may be employed.
16. Ordinarily such abbreviations as loc. cit., op. cit. should not
be used to refer farther back than the preceding page. Since the
problem, however, is merely to avoid ambiguity, no hard and fast
rule need be laid down.
17. All references should be verified in the completed MS. before
it is submitted for publication.
18. Mediaeval nomenclature is far from uniform. Where a con-
ventional English form of a name exists, this should be used: thus,
Vincent of Beauvais, Geoffrey of Monmouth, not Vincentius Bello-
vacensis, Vincent de Beauvais, or Galfridus Monmutensis. If no recog-
nized English form exists, it will be preferable in most cases to use
the form of the name employed to-day in the language of the writer
concerned; thus, Chrétien de Troyes, not Chrestien de Troyes or Chris-
tian of Troyes; Gautier de Chatillon, not Gualterus de Castellvone or
Walter of Chatillon. In many cases the “‘standard” form is, by
common consent and practice, Latin; thus, Andreas Capellanus, not
Andrew the Chaplain. There will of course be many doubtful cases,
e. g., Alanus de (ab) Insulis vs. Alain de l’'Ile (de Lille).
The principle here stated is also applicable in most cases to the
titles of mediaeval works.
Except where a well-established Anglicized form exists, place-
names should follow the usage of the country in which the place now
lies.
19. In preparing the above typographical and _ bibliographical
rules, the editors have been under great obligation to A Manual for
Writers by J. M. Manly and J. A. Powell (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press).
lil
AUTHOR’S CORRECTIONS
The funds of SpecuLum do not admit of an expenditure of over
fifteen per cent (15%) of the cost of composition for alterations in
articles once set up in galley-proof. In order that contributors may
be spared the expense of exceeding this allowance, they are urged to
prepare their MSS as nearly as possible in ‘conformity with the
above rules.
IV
OFF-PRINTS
Fifty (50) off-prints will be given to the author of each article.
Off-prints in excess of the regular allowance may be had at cost and
should be ordered at the time of publication.
Inquiries may be addressed to the Managing Editor.
a
pr a er ae i ES AIT ~caataean oii — easiest — ar ir <a NE
— eee ee
— ee ei
——— = yy eee wr a ee ee
~ ee ag oe es -
€ ba * =
7
.
eet le rare j : eh 7
‘ > hee o = ¢ : ; . a - ) - , ae ; . 5 4 oo. . Sof tac vv ‘
ea yor! & Far ONC aCe Beattie ee os, Peak 2h aie se
s < ie ~. oe ’ ; re A, nd * 55 A na : wig ae.
zt + « yy | Lat * ° Cs mae % : fs" ; E “a , ee
ios O92 Ae.
es te, a oY 4
mt
WA ate,
Ae
: Beds a
rae
~~
~
7
1
ia
Ba
rH Se
bet :
|
thx:
“oe >)
‘ ‘ x
Jot. Se £ a
£ Se et
, : ype
je
Blea
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
APRIL, 1926
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
Any person desirous of becoming a Member of the MepiarvaL ACADEMY OF AMERICA:
is requested to communicate with one of the Officers or with a Member. Candidates:
_ are elected when nominated by a Member and approved by an Officer of the Acap-
EMy. Active Membership, Five Dollars per annum. Besides Active Membership, the
following classes of Membership are open to all who may wish to make further con-
tributions to the support and endowment of the Acapgemy: Contributing Member-
ship, Ten Dollars per annum; Life Membership, One Hundred Dollars; Sustaining
Membership, Five Hundred Dollars. A Sustaining- Member who subscribes at one
time One Thousand: Dollars shall be known as a Benefactor; Ten Thousand Dollars,
as a Patron; and Fifty Thousand Dollars within Two Years of the Date of Incorpo-
,, 1925) as a Founder. See By-Laws, §§11-14. -
rd 7
fo —
“ : oF i = |
f eeu Oe: ae OFF ICERS OF THE ACADEMY
X i. “y ; 2? ; President
at We, at ww” Epwarp Kennarp Rano
by eC Ree eee ce Harvard University |
a ie | ‘
Xv First Vice-President Second Vice-President Third Vice-President
Jonn Matruews Many Cuarvtes Howser Haskins James Fretp WILLARD
_ University.of Chicago ~ Harvard University : University of Colorado
ny 2 T9E6 Treasurer 7 | Clerk
= *<<" Joun Nicuoias Brown Raurn Apams CraM
Providence, R. 1. ; Boston, Mass.
: Couneil .
Privre SchuYLER ALLEN - Cuar.es Henry Beeson GEORGE Ra.eiau CorrmMan
University of Chicago University of Chicago Boston University _
Gorpvon Hatu GERouLD Louis Jonn Partow Grorace ARTHUR PLIMPTON |
Princeton University University of California . New York City |
Artaur Kincstsy Porter = WintiaM WaLxer Rocxwett James Huan Ryan
Harvard University | Union Theological Seminary Catholic University of America
Joun Streone Perry Tattock: James WestTraLt THompson . Karu Youna
Harvard University University of Chicago Yale University
The purpose of the MeprarvaL ACADEMY Or AMERICA is “to conduct, encourage,
promote, and support research, publication, and instruction in mediaeval records,
literature, languages, arts, archaeology, history, philosophy, science, life, and all other
aspects of mediaeval civilization. . . .””— Extract from Agreement of Association.
Subscriptions, effective from January 1 of the current calendar-year, should be
paid to the MepiaevaL Acapemy or America, Room 312, 248 Boylston Street,
Boston, Mass. Any Member wishing to withdraw must signify his intention in
writing prior to January 1. of the ensuing year; otherwise he will be considered liable
to pay his subscription for that year. |
It is particularly requested that any change of residence or error in address be
communicated forthwith to the Clerk of the AcapEmy, Room 312, 248 Boylston Street,
Boston, Mass. . |
A copy of the By-Laws of the AcapEmy will be sent post-free to each Member upon
election. Additional copies may be had from the Clerk at Fifty Cents each. _
SpecuLum, A JouRNaL oF MepraEvaL Stupigs, is delivered post-free to Members
not in arrear of the Annual Subscription and to Life Members and to the various
classes of Contributing Members. | :
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
CONTENTS
ARTICLES
THE DATE OF COMPOSITION OF GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH’S
HISTORIA ..... oD, eect oo wa ale ks Git BE a ee, 2 Acton Griscom 129
THE LITERARY BACKGROUND OF THE CHANTEFABLE
Joun R. REINHARD
SOME ASPECTS OF MEDIAEVAL LATIN STYLE. . Magsury BiAapEn Ocie
AN INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS IN MISS ALMA BLOUNT’S UNPUB-
LISHED ONOMASTICON ARTHURIANUM .........2524-
EXPOSITION DU MOYEN AGE ............ Louis Joun PaEtow
THE ARABIC BIBLE IN SPAIN ............ Henry S. GEHMAN
A FURTHER NOTE ON A NOTE .......... Cuar.es H. Haskins
CHAUCER IN ERROR ..............2....0..
THE COMPILATION OF ST ALBANS AND THE OLD-FRENCH
PROSE ALEXANDER ROMANCE........... F. P. Magoun, Jr. 225
Piet ea obec Ante hk ye ee ee ee Be Ge es te 233
Hermann Beenken, Romanische Skulptur in Deutschland, 11. und 12. Jahrhundert
(A. Kingsley Porter); William Walker Rockwell, Liber Miraculorum Ninivenstum
Sancti Cornelii Papae (Gordon Hall Gerould); Marc Bloch, La Vie d’outre-tombe du
Rot Salomon (Gordon Hall Gerould); Reginald Lane Poole, Chronicles and Annals:
a Brief Outline of their Origin and Growth (Charles H. Haskins); Byzantion (R. P.
Blake)
NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
VOLUME I APRIL, 1926 NUMBER 2
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
SPECULUM, A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
EDITORIAL BOARD
Eprror-1n-CHaier
Epwarp KENNARD RaNnD
107 Lake View Ave., Cambridge, Mass.
Manaaine Eprror Pus.iisHinae Eprror
Francis Peasopy Maaoon, Jr. JoHN NicHotas Brown
45 Winthrop St., Cambridge, Mass. 50 South Main St., Providence, B.I.
Wruu1am WITHERLE LAWRENCE James HucH Ryan
Columbia University Catholic University of America
CHARLES Rurus Morry Ernest Hatca WILKINS
Princeton University University of Chicago
Louis JoHN Partow Kari YOUNG
University of California Yale University
ADVISORY BOARD
Pare SCHUYLER ALLEN Grora@E La PIANA
University of Chicago Harvard University
Harry Morgan AYRES JoHN Matruews MANty
Columbia University University of Chicago
CHARLES HENry BEESON Dana CarRLTON Munro
University of Chicago Princeton University
GrorGE RaLeEiIcH CoFFMAN Wivu1am ALBERT NITZE
Boston University University of Chicago
CorNELIA CATLIN COULTER ArtHur KINGSLEY PorRTER
Vassar College Harvard University
Ratepg ApamMs Cram Frep Norris Rosinson
Boston, Massachusetts Harvard University
GorpoN Haut GEROULD JoHN StroNG Perry TaTLoOcK
Princeton University Harvard University
GrorGE LIVINGSTONE HamittoN JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
Cornell University University of Chicago
CHARLES Homer Haskins Lynn THORNDIKD
Harvard University Columbia University
JAMES FIELD WILLARD
University of Colorado
Sprcutum, A JouRNAL or Mepiuevat Sruprss, is published quarterly by the Mrpranvan
AcapEMyY or Amenica. The issues appear in January, April, July, and October. The sub-
scription price is Five Dollars; single copies may be had post-free for One Dollar and Fifty
Cents. Members of the AcapEmy receive SPECULUM post-free. In case of accidental omission
in the delivery of SpecuLum, Members are requested to communicate forthwith in writing
with the Publishing Editor. MSS submitted eee should be forwarded to the
Managing Editor, but MSS will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped and self-
addressed envelope. For the details of editorial practice Contributors are directed to ‘‘ Notes
for Contributors” at the end of this number. The Editors cannot assume responsibility for the
loss of MSS in the mails.
Vou. I, No. 2, — Copyright, 1986, by the Mediaeval Academy of America. — Parmrrzp m U.S. A.
a =_y-—————
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
AG
THE DATE OF COMPOSITION OF GEOFFREY OF
MONMOUTH’S HISTORIA:
NEW MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
Br ACTON GRISCOM
HE great difficulty in investigating many problems connected
with the Htstorra Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth is,
as all scholars know, the lack of an adequate critical edition. San-
Marte’s text (Halle, 1854) is but a reproduction of Giles’s text
(London, 1844); and, though Giles placed on his title-page “‘ Novem
Codd. MSStis Collatis”’ and wrote in the Introduction that “a large
number of manuscripts have been either wholly or in part collated
for this edition,” ! nevertheless he seems to have failed to use the
manuscripts he names. Instead, he reproduced, with only a few
changes in the spelling of proper names and in the tenses of verbs,
the printed text of Jerome Commelin of Heidelberg, who published
his Rerum Britannicarum Scriptores in 1587. Certainly, where, in im-
portant test-passages, he differs from the very manuscripts he cites,
Giles agrees verbatim with Commelin. Indeed, in the list of nine
“manuscripts” given in a note on page 240 of his edition, Giles places
as the first of these nine “manuscripts” this very printed edition of
Commelin, as well as another printed text of the Prophecies of Merlin,
published by Michel and Wright. Only one complete manuscript
is referred to by Giles in this list, and this he admits to be of the
fourteenth century. Of the other manuscripts, he says that he col-
lated only through the first six or eight Books; but the text unfor-
tunately belies his words. As a result, the text which has been
1 Galfredi Monemutensis Historia Britonum (London, 1844), p. x.
129
130 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
accepted for over seventy years as the ‘standard,’ and which San-
Marte reproduced as trustworthy, really depends upon a sixteenth-
century printer. One may even push the matter one step farther
back, because Commelin in turn based his edition upon the text of
Ascensius, printed in Paris in 1508; ' and one glance at Ascensius’s
edition will convince the student that neither editor nor printer was
equipped to reproduce manuscripts in the modern scholarly sense.
In working out certain problems connected with the sources of
Geoffrey, I have made a collation and a critical text of three manu-
scripts. These three are: (1) University Library, Cambridge, MS.
No. 1706 [old No. 12.1.14], saec. xit.; (2) Staatsbibliothek, Bern,
Coder 568, fol. 18-79, saec. xi1.; and (3) a manuscript known once
as MS. Porkington 17, now in the private library of Lord Harlech,
Brogyntyn, Oswestry, Shropshire, saec. x171., which has not hereto-
fore been described though its existence has been more than once
recorded. Lord Harlech was so exceedingly generous and kind as
to lend his manuscript to me for examination and collation, sending
it across the Atlantic through the courtesy of Mr J. Pierpont Morgan,
who personally assumed responsibility for it and deposited it in his
library in New York. It would be difficult to parallel such an in-
stance of consideration for scholars and the cause of scholarship, and
there are many besides the present writer who would wish to ex-
press their grateful recognition of so signal an act of generosity.
Many interesting results, which I hope later to publish in detail,
have grown out of this work. I here present one, which is of special
interest to scholars and which can be clearly set forth within the
limits of a single article.
One manuscript, and only one, of the Hzstoria, has heretofore
been known to have a double dedication in the introductory Pro-
logue — all other manuscripts being supposed to agree with the
printed texts in having but a single dedication to Robert of Glou-
cester, natural son of Henry I and well-known patron of arts and
letters. In 1857, Sir Frederick Madden, while perusing an old cata-
1 T.e., Jodocus Badius Ascensius, Britannie utriusque regum et principum origo et gesta
insignia ab Galfrido Monemutensi. . . . Paris, 1508 (also 1517); cf. Ph. Renouard, Bibliographie
... de Josse Badius Ascensius (Paris, 1908), II, 461, 462.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 131
logue of manuscripts in the Staatsbibliothek at Bern,’ discovered
this one manuscript with a double dedication, viz., to King Stephen
and Robert of Gloucester, and at that time he wrote: “One would
have supposed that so remarkable a fact as is here pointed out,
namely, the dedication of Geoffrey’s famous work to King Stephen,—
whereas in all the other extant copies [nota bene/], it is addressed to
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, natural son of Henry I.,— would have
attracted immediate attention to the manuscript.” ? Madden, how-
ever, obviously had neither examined the Oxford and Cambridge
manuscripts, so very near at hand, nor those in the Bibliothéque
Nationale and the Vatican. In fact, the splendid collection of thirty-
seven manuscripts of the Historia in the British Museum, so readily
available, all of which contain merely the usual single dedication to
Robert, seems to have diverted the attention of scholars from the
thirty-two in the several libraries in Cambridge (nine of the twelfth
century), the twenty-six similarly scattered at Oxford (five of the
twelfth century), the twenty-eight in the Bibliothéque Nationale
(four of the twelfth century), and the eight in the Vatican Library
(two of the twelfth century), not to mention at least the eight
twelfth-century manuscripts in various public libraries in France,
and others in England not in the above collections.
It has not, then, hitherto been noticed by scholars that at least
seven manuscripts exist, three in Cambridge, two in Oxford, with
one in Paris, and another in Rome, having a double dedication, not
to King Stephen and Robert, but to Robert of Gloucester and Wal-
eran, Earl of Mellent. It is astonishing that these manuscripts, four
of them of the twelfth and three of the thirteenth century, with this
important double dedication, should have been overlooked, not only
during a dozen generations of scholarship, but for so many years in
the more recent past, when scholars have constantly been forced
back to Geoffrey’s Historia in the course of their researches. It is
more extraordinary when one considers also that these manuscripts
are in libraries accessible to all. These seven manuscripts are:
1 J. R. Sinner, Catalogus Codicum Mss. Bibliothecae Bernensis (Bern, 1760-1770), II, 242;
the MS. in question is No. 568 (pp. 241, 242). See below for facsimiles of fol. 18r, 18v.
2 Archaeological Journal, XV (1858), 299.
132 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
(1) University Library, Cambridge, No. 1706 [1.1.14], saec. xi;
(2) the same, No. 1801 [It. tv. 4], saec. xu; (3) Trinity College,
Cambridge, No. 1125, saec. xi; (4) Bodleian No. 514, saec. xii;
(5) Bodl. Add. A. 61, saec. xii; (6) Bibliothéque Nationale, fonds
latin, No. 6040, saec. x11; and (7) Vatican Latin No. 2005, end of the
twelfth century. The Oxford and Cambridge manuscripts have been
described in the official printed catalogues, but the double dedication
has been overlooked, though in the case of the Trinity College MS.,
M. R. James noted with his usual care the new ending of the longer
dedicatory paragraph, the significance of which, however, escaped
him — as also others who have read this catalogue. The writer has
not been able thus far to check for these double dedications all the
manuscripts later than the twelfth century; so there may be other
copies still to record. However, those known to be of the twelfth
century, and all of whatever date in Oxford, Cambridge, the Biblio-
théque Nationale, and the Vatican, in Florence, Dublin, Brussels,
Leyden, Rouen, and in the famous Phillipps Collection at Thirles-
taine House, Cheltenham, as well as some others, have been reéx-
amined with this special point in view.!
In all, the writer has listed a total of one hundred and eighty-three
practically complete manuscripts, with others in more or less frag-
mentary condition, though it is highly probable that there are more to
be discovered in private libraries. Of these, forty-six are indisputably
of the twelfth century, distributed among twenty-two libraries in
six different countries, and a dozen more of the early thirteenth.
Hardy’s list ? of one hundred and seventy-three, besides being in-
complete, has many unconscious duplications, and, as his descriptive
detail was frequently taken from very early catalogues or printed
summaries, many of his entries need radical revision, and his dating
of the age of manuscripts is often mistaken by two centuries. It is
obvious, therefore, that a new list is necessary, and it is hoped to
publish this with the texts.
1 The writer is deeply indebted to Stanley V. LaDow, M.A., for investigating the manu-
scripts in the Bibliothéque Nationale for him, and to T. Fitzroy Fenwick for sending detailed
descriptions of his three manuscripts at Cheltenham; also to Dr Joseph Martini for scholarly
and copious transcripts made from the manuscripts in Florence.
2 T. D. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain
and Ireland, Rolls Series, XX VI (1862), i, $41 ff.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 133
The significant portions of this new double dedication will now
be given in translation with the original Latin text and a complete
translation on pages 148 and following below.
After a preliminary statement about the old British book which
he obtained from Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, and translated into
Latin, Geoffrey continues:
Untothis little work of mine, therefore, dothou, Robert, Earl of Gloucester,
show favor, so that, being corrected by thy instruction and advice, it may
be rated to have sprung, not from the poor little fountain of Geoffrey of
Monmouth, but, seasoned by the salt of thy wit, may be said to be the
work of one whom Henry, illustrious king of the English, bore, whom phi-
losophy nurtured in the liberal arts, and whom an innate competence made
superior to warriors in the art of war, — wherefore the island of Britain
now, in these days, rejoices in thee with heartfelt affection as if possessed
of another Henry.!
Here the single dedication, as represented in the printed texts,
ends; but in our new manuscripts an additional paragraph appears,
the opening sentence of which reads as follows:
And do thou also, Waleran, Count of Mellent, thou other pillar of our
realm, give thy aid, that, through the common patronage of both, when
presented to the world, this work may shine forth the more resplendently.!
What follows will be analyzed in due course.
In the Bern manuscript No. 568 referred to above,” this second
paragraph also appears, but as King Stephen’s name had been sub-
stituted for that of Robert in the first paragraph, Robert appears
in the second, displacing Waleran, and the above sentence, as well
as all that follows, is made to apply to Robert. The incongruities
resulting from these substitutions clearly indicate, as we shall see
presently, that the Robert-Waleran dedication preceded the Ste-
phen-Robert.
Since the long familiar single dedication of Geoffrey’s Htstoria is
direct and personal, it was evidently written before Robert of
Gloucester’s death, October 31, 1147. It is, however, often possible,
where two or more persons are addressed at the same time, to narrow
1 For text of the Cambridge MS., o. infra, p. 147, col. a, Il. 836-50.
2 Page 181, fn. 1. V. infra, pp. 147, 148, col. a, ll. 50-55 for text.
134 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
down the actual date of the time of writing because of some known
relationship or special circumstance which either brought together
or separated the individuals concerned. This was the special signifi-
cance of Madden’s discovery of the double dedication to King
Stephen and Robert, which he pointed out at that time, and which
received fuller and somewhat more accurate treatment at the hands
of the late Professor W. Lewis Jones.1. Madden had argued that,
once granting the genuineness of the Bern dedications, one could
date the composition of the Historia within the period of months
between the death of Henry I, whose death is implied, and the final
break between King Stephen and Robert in 1138, because no writer
would have dedicated a book to Stephen and Robert together after
civil war had broken out between them. “The only period during
which Stephen and the Earl of Gloucester were on amicable terms,
even in appearance, must have been between April, 1136, when
Robert came over to England and did homage to the King, and
May, 1138, at which time the Earl sent to renounce the fealty he
had sworn.” ? After 1138, Robert, supporting Matilda, was in
constant enmity with King Stephen until his death in 1147, so that
Geoffrey of Monmouth could not have dedicated his history to both
men after 1138 without inevitably incurring the wrath of one of
them. Since, in fact, the largest number of manuscripts have but the
single dedication to Robert, the inference is clear that he took sides
with the latter, giving up the attempt to curry favor with the king.
Robert, indeed, despite his constant fighting, seems to have been
throughout a patron of letters, and William of Malmesbury also
dedicated his Historia to him.
But the existence, as was supposed, of only one known manu-
script dedicated to both the king and Robert cast a shade of doubt
upon its genuineness, especially when, in 1899, it was made plain
by Professor Jones, who worked from a transcript, that the intro-
duction in the Bern manuscript occupies a separate, preliminary
leaf and is “in a different hand from that which immediately fol-
1 In his study “‘Geoffrey of Monmouth,” published in the Transactions of the Honourable
Society of Cymmrodorion, London, 1900, pp. 52-95.
2 Madden, Archaeol. Journ., XV (1858), $10 ad fin.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 135
lows, and cannot be certainly identified with any of the others...
(probably at least five).” After weighing all the evidence, Professor
Jones expressed himself as follows: “I suspect that the Bern manu-
script, certainly as old a manuscript of the History as any we know,
is a copy of a very early edition of the full History, and as there is
no valid reason for doubting the genuineness of its dedication, it
may be inferred that Geoffrey had completed his first draft of the
History before 1138.” ! He had already stated without qualification
— just as Madden had done — that “‘all the known manuscripts,”
except this one Bern manuscript, had a single dedication to Robert
of Gloucester. Apparently he had examined no manuscript of
Geoffrey’s work outside the British Museum.
However, Professor Jones appears to have altered his opinion
radically about two years later in a letter to Dr R. H. Fletcher.
Dr Fletcher, summarizing this letter, stated that Professor Jones
was “inclined to modify his views about the manuscript as expressed
in his article,” especially as “‘it includes in the prophecies the sen-
tence beginning ‘Vae tht Neustria,’ which Ward shows to be a late
interpolation.” ? Briefly put, this sentence from the Prophecies of
Merlin which are introduced by Geoffrey himself into the text of
his Hvstoria, and which apparently he had previously published,
does not appear in a quotation made from these Prophecies by
Ordericus Vitalis about 1136, nor does it appear in seventeen manu-
script copies of the Hzstorta read by Ward in the British Museum.
Therefore, it is a clear deduction that the original Prophecies did not
contain this sentence. Since, however, it does appear in some twelfth-
century manuscripts, “the interpolation was [according to Ward]
an early one.”
Now the fact is that the Bern manuscript does not contain this
sentence, ‘Vae tibt Neustria,’ and Professor Jones must have been
misled by a faulty transcript since he himself did not work from the
manuscript. Neither does our Cambridge manuscript contain this
sentence, and, consequently, we are justified in concluding that the
1 Art. cit. supra, pp. 66, 67.
2 “Two Notes on the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth,” Publ. Mod.
Lang. Ass., XVI (1901), 4638, 464. Cf.H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances .. . in the British
Museum, I (1883), 208 ff.
136 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
form of the Prophecies as they appear in these manuscripts is the
earlier. The major argument for setting aside the Bern manuscript
as late and interpolated therefore disappears; and the further doubt
that the double dedication in this manuscript must be suspected
because of its ‘uniqueness’ also loses weight when we realize that
there are at least seven other manuscripts, five of them twelfth-cen-
tury, not, it is true, with the same double dedication, but with
another that is significantly related to it.
The Bern manuscript and our chosen Cambridge manuscript re-
quire at this point a word of special description. They run together in
a striking parallelism in so far as the orthography of personal names
and place-names, the “less polished Latinity,” and other minor
textual matters are concerned. The names, for instance, approxi-
mate far more nearly the Welsh originals than do the printed texts
and some of the later manuscripts. Minute comparison would lead
one to conclude that they belong to the same early period in the
history of the text, still largely uncorrupted by later scribal ‘cor-
rections.” The Bern manuscript appears to have been hastily, and
sometimes carelessly, written by five different scribes; while the
double dedication, occupying, with the “Description of Britain,” an
initial and independent leaf, is certainly in a hand which nowhere
else occurs in the manuscript; indeed, the first line may even be in
a different hand from the subsequent portion. All the hands are
contemporaneous and closely resemble those appearing in facsimiles
of handwriting dating before the middle of the twelfth century.
The Cambridge manuscript is in one uniform style of writing, very
large, clear, and regular, which may be dated with still greater cer-
tainty before 1150. There are, perhaps, two hands closely resembling
each other—though with a possibility that there is only one— written
at different times; in any event, little scribal variation occurs in the
spelling of personal names and place-names.
For special reasons, which will be developed later, the Cambridge
manuscript is held to be probably the earlier of the two. For ex-
ample, it does not contain all the lines of verse in the first Book,
namely, Brutus’s invocation of Diana and the goddess’s reply (fol.
8r and 8v), which appear in the later manuscripts (including the
——,
pone D
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 137
Bern) and in the printed texts. This is distinctly significant, in that
Henry of Huntingdon, in his letter to Warinus written from Bec in
Normandy in January, 1139, while apparently copying these verses,
likewise fails to give the complete set. One might infer from this that
Geoffrey added lines to the verses of an original edition. Further-
more, the Cambridge manuscript does not give at the conclusion the
usual envoy to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon,
with its repetition of the statement that Geoffrey had a Welsh or
British book which Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, had given him,
and which he had taken pains to translate into Latin. The manu-
script, however, comes to a full and normal stop in the middle of
the page, with the word EXPLICIT written by the same scribe in
capital letters as the first word of a new line. There was plenty of
space, therefore, on the page, for the additional paragraph of envoy.
Out of scores of complete manuscripts where the usual concluding
epilogue is given, this, and only one other manuscript,' comes to an
end without reference to the rival historians. It is hardly probable
that a scribe would have omitted so important a concluding para-
graph; moreover, since Warinus demanded of Henry of Huntingdon
why he had not told of the early British kings — exactly the field
covered by Geoffrey, and provocative of a defensive reply from
Henry — we may safely surmise that Geoffrey first published the
Historva without any reference to other historians, and that, not
until his published work was challenged, did he add in a later edition
a renewed statement about his sources, claiming, as it were, a sort
of patent or copyright for his discovery, and specifically warning
rival historians that they must acknowledge his Welsh source for
early British history.’
1 Philipps MS. No. 2324, said by T. Fitzroy Fenwick, who most kindly described his
MSS for me, to be of the “twelfth century, in double columns, on vellum. With capitals in
green and red.’”’ The dedication is said to be to Robert of Gloucester, a point which I am now
writing to confirm.
2 This whole matter must be dealt with systematically on another occasion since it would
require far too extensive an examination to find a place in the present article. See, however,
my preliminary study of some of the Welsh MSS involved, “‘The Book of Basingwerk and
MS. Cotton Cleopatra B.V.,” Y Cymmrodor, XXXV (1925), 49-116 and XXXVI (1926),
1-86, where I have attempted to show that the Welsh MSS have not been adequately ex-
amined, and that the internal evidence (colophons, etc.) in some of these tends to bear out
rather than to contravene Geoffrey’s claim that he was in possession of a native (Celtic) source.
138 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
To sum up, however, both the Cambridge and the Bern MSS
show a marked similarity in their lack of polish, phrasing, and prox-
imity to a Welsh original. But the Cambridge dedication differs
from the Bern and gives evidence, already indicated (p. 133, supra),
that it was composed at a still earlier date.
To establish this fact, it will be necessary to enter with some de-
tail into the history and relations of the three men involved: King
Stephen, Robert of Gloucester, and Waleran of Mellent, and this,
fortunately, the unusually full chronicles of the period enable us
to do.
Waleran (or Gualerannus) Earl of Mellent (or Count of Meulan,
as he is also styled), was born in 1104 and died in 1166. He was twin
brother of Robert, Earl of Leicester, and son of Robert de Beaumont,
Count of Meulan, who was a prominent adviser and powerful sup-
porter of Henry I until his death in 1118. Waleran and his brother
succeeded their father, the former assuming the titles to the French
fief of Mellent, and also to Beaumont in Normandy. Imprisoned by
Henry I for five years ! (1124-29) on account of a rebellious outbreak
in which he distinguished himself for barbarous cruelty to his own
peasants, Waleran seems to have been reinstated in royal favor, for
we see him immediately after his release witnessing various docu-
ments in company with the king and his following. The first of these,
as published by Dr William Farrer,? may be dated between 1129
and 1131, and is of special interest in that Waleran’s signature is
directly preceded by that of Robert of Gloucester, implying, in the
light of Geoffrey’s double dedication, at least a certain companion-
ship together in the king’s service, if no more. ‘The purchases of
land, etc., made by Eudo, abbot of St Stephen’s, Caen, are con-
firmed by the king. The signatories are: King Henry .. . Robert
earl of Gloucester, Waleran count of Meulan,”’ with a number of im-
portant names following. Another document? to be dated about
1 Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, xii, 39 (ed. A. LePrévost, IV (1852), 455 ff.).
Cf. Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, vii, 35, (ed. T. Arnold), Rolls Series, LX XIV
(1879), 245. |
2 “An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First,” English Historical Review, XXXIV
(1919), 126.
3 No. 622, Farrer, art. cit., p. 184.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 139
1130-31, is similarly signed both by Robert and Waleran, with the
same titles and names following. A third, dated Rouen, 1131, is
again witnessed by both Robert and Waleran. Still a fourth docu-
ment, dated July-August, 1131, a “Confirmation to the abbey of
Bec,” contains both signatures once more, and Waleran appears as
*““Waleran count of Meulan, patron of the abbey.”’! It was from
Bec that Henry of Huntingdon indited his famous epistle, already re-
ferred to,? to Warinus the Briton about Geoffrey’s Historia which he
had discovered there, and one wonders if the fact that Henry made
just this discovery at Bec may not have some connection with the
fact that Waleran, one of Geoffrey’s patrons, was also patron of this
abbey? One more document contains the signature of Robert im-
mediately preceding that of Waleran; and as Robert was a natural
son of the king, thereby outranking other noblemen, it is not without
significance that Waleran’s signature should so frequently and regu-
larly follow immediately after Robert’s, thereby taking precedence
over many other powerful retainers who signed the documents with
them, and suggesting the possibility of a close relation between the
two men.
Henry I died in the castle of Lions, about six leagues from Rouen,
on the first of December, 1135.2 Those singled out for mention as
at his bedside were Robert of Gloucester, his natural son but not
his heir, and Waleran, Earl of Mellent, with the latter’s hunchback
brother Robert, Earl of Leicester. Owing to storms, Henry’s body
did not reach England until after Christmas, and he was buried at
Reading, January sixth. Stephen, Henry’s nephew, who was prob-
ably at Boulogne when his uncle died, crossed immediately to
England, and, breaking his oath previously made to Henry, was
hastily crowned on December twenty-sixth (Ordericus says the fif-
teenth, but other chroniclers agree on the twenty-sixth) by William
de Curboil, archbishop of Canterbury, who also broke his oath to the
dead king. Waleran followed Stephen to England. Stephen, whose
coronation was ill received by his elder brother, Theobald, and who
1 Document No. 648, Farrer, art. cit., p. 188.
2 P. 187, supra.
3 Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. Eccles. xiii, 19.
140 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
had many and powerful enemies, the adherents of Matilda, Henry’s
daughter and chosen heir, needed above all things to establish his
position by winning the friendship of as many powerful supporters
as possible. One of his first acts, therefore, some time before Easter
1136, was to betroth his infant daughter to Waleran “‘tn cunabulis,” 3
though they were never married. Immediately after Easter, Orderi-
cus tells us, Waleran “hastened to return to Normandy,” and re-
captured for the king the fortress of Vaudreil from Roger de Toeni,
and later, October third, made Roger a prisoner also. Now Easter
fell on March twenty-second, and, as Robert of Gloucester apparently
did not come to England until April to pay homage and to swear
fealty to the king, the probability is that the two men did not actually
meet at that time. But it is in this period, while Robert was in
England and gave at least the appearance of supporting Stephen,
and Waleran, betrothed to the king’s daughter, was successfully
campaigning in Normandy on the king’s behalf, that Geoffrey might
well have dedicated his Historia to both noblemen: to Robert, in
whom “the isle of Britain now, in these days, rejoices with heartfelt
affection, as if possessed of another Henry,” and to Waleran, “the
other pillar of the realm,” who, as “the scion of that most illus-
trious King Charles,” ? is guided “to the camp of kings, where, fear-
lessly outstripping thy comrades, thou, under thy father’s auspices,
didst learn to be at once a terror to the enemy and the defender of
thine own.” We shall revert to these phrases later.
William of Malmesbury explains Robert’s motives and reserves
in coming to England, and says that “he dissembled for a time his
secret intentions. He did homage to the king, therefore, under a
certain condition, namely, so long as he should preserve his rank,
1 Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. Eccles. xiii, 22 (ed. cit., V, 58): Tune Stephanus rex filiam suam
biennem Gualeranno comiti de Mellento in cunabulis dedit. Waleran later married Agnes de
Montfort. In Vol. IV, fol. 110 of a manuscript catalogue once belonging to Lord Calthorpe,
is a charter dated 1136. ‘‘By it King Stephen gives the manor of Sutton to God and the
church of St Peter of Winchester in exchange for the manor of Morden which he gave to
Walleran, Ear] of Mellent, and which the church long possessed” — Second Report of the Royal
Commission on Historical Manuscripts, London, 1874, Appendix, p. 39.
2 Charlemagne, from whom Waleran was descended through his mother. For text of
quotations, see pp. 147, 148 tnfra.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 141
and keep his engagements.” ! Stephen, on his part, later took a spe-
cific oath recognizing Robert’s special claims — which oath he by
no means kept. In fact, not long afterwards, he planned a treach-
erous attack upon Robert, which was foiled only by the latter’s pro-
longed absence from his castle.
During April, 1136, while Robert was in England and Waleran
in Normandy, Stephen visited Oxford,? where we have every reason
to believe, Geoffrey was “magister”; and, since the earliest Welsh
life states that Geoffrey “‘was the instructor of many scholars and
chieftains,” * it would seem that Salter’s supposition that he was
there a “Canon of St George’s”’ is highly probable. Both Geoffrey
and Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, witnessed the foundation-charter
of Oseney in 1129, and also a charter at St John’s College, Oxford,
to be dated between 1125-35; Walter was also present at the dedi-
cation of the church at Godstow, April 2, 1138,‘ and witnessed a deed
in the Godstow Cartulary (fol. 5) in January, 1139. It may well have
been at precisely the time of Stephen’s visit, therefore, that Geoffrey
dedicated another copy of his newly-written book to the king as well
as to Robert, his regular patron. We shall return to this later.
In the third week of March, 1137,° Stephen crossed to Normandy,
joining Waleran, and was followed on Easter day © by Robert of
Gloucester, who, as William of Malmesbury suggests, was already
wavering in his enforced allegiance to the king and was arranging
1 Historia Novella, i, § 483 ad fin. (ed. Stubbs, Rolls Ser., XC, ii, 541): Itaque homagium
regi fecit sub conditione quadam, scilicet, quamdtu ille dignitatem suam integre custodire et sibi
pacta servaret. Cf. §§ 468, 466.
2 Henry of Huntingdon, viii, 8 (ed. cit., p. 258). Cf. J. H. Round’s masterly discussion in
his Geoffrey de Mandeville (London, 1892), pp. 15-24.
3 Gwentian Brut or Brut y Tywysogion, compiled from early sources in a careless and un-
reliable manner about 1550, and printed in the Myvyrian Archatology of Wales (2d ed., Den-
bigh, 1870), p. 711 (cf. bottom of col. a and col. b). Cf. H. E. Salter, “‘Geoffrey of Monmouth
and Oxford,” English Historical Review, XXXIV (1919), 882-85, where no reference is
given, and also W. Lewis Jones, op. ct., pp. 57, 58.
¢ Carta domint Walteri, Archidtacont Oxinfordensis, facta conventui de Godestow, in dedica-
cione ecclesie, printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps, “Additional Particulars for the Biography of
Three Oxfordshire Writers,” Proceedings of the Archaeological Institute (Meeting of June, 1850),
London, 1854, pp. 95 ff.
§ Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. Eccles. xiii, 30 (ed. A. LePrévost, V, 81); cf. Henry of Hunting-
don, viii, 5.
* William of Malmesbury, Hist. Novella, i, § 466 (ed. cit. p. 543).
142 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
“‘what he conceived proper to be done afterwards.” In December,!
1137, Waleran, who had assisted the king in establishing his position
throughout Normandy, returned with him to England, to cope with
the rebellion there of several powerful and factious counts, as well as
with the rapacity of knightly free-booters. Stephen was measurably
successful, and Waleran returned in May, 1138, to Normandy,’
attacking Roger de Couches and plundering the country. In June,
Geoffrey of Anjou, husband of Matilda — the daughter and desig-
nated heiress of Henry I and half-sister of Robert — entered Nor-
mandy with a body of troops, bent upon establishing Matilda’s
claims to the English throne, and “‘by prayers and promises drew
Robert Earl of Gloucester to his side.” * William of Malmesbury
adds that “immediately after Pentecost [June thirteenth], sending
some of his men from Normandy to the king, he [Robert] took back,
following ancient usage, his friendship and allegiance, and even re-
nounced his homage, giving as a just reason, that the king had ille-
gally aspired to the kingdom.” ‘
The break between Robert and King Stephen, therefore, can be
assigned precisely, and the period of their friendship set between
the most definite limits, that is, April, 1136, and June, 1138. In the
same way, Ordericus tells us that Waleran within one month (July),
not merely declared hostility against, but actually besieged, Robert
in his stronghold at Caen. Thus we may also set an absolute limit to
any friendship between Robert and Waleran.
In the month of July, Waleran Count [of Mellent] and William of
Ypres grieving that the enemy should prevail through intestine treason
... resolved to go against the Angevins. But Robert de Courcei hastily
sent a messenger to Count Geoffrey [of Anjou] and informed him of their
machinations, urging him speedily to withdraw from Normandy and to
await another opportunity to aggrandize himself. On hearing this, he
immediately retreated with his troops in some fear; so that the enemy,
who had mustered a large force, were greatly disappointed that the hostile
1 “On the very eve of Christmas” — Henry of Huntingdon, viii, 5; Ordericus Vitalis,
Hist. Eccles., xiii, 32 (ed. A. LePrévost, V, 91): Unde in adrentu Domini festinanter in Angliam
transfretarit, et Gualerannum atque Rodbertum comites aliosque proceres pene omnes secum durit.
2 Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. Eccles., xiii, 37 (ed. A. LePrévost, V, 108).
3 Ibid. (ed. cit., V, 108).
4 Historia Novella, i, § 467 (ed. cit. p. 545).
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 143
army, by an unexpected retreat, should escape. Indeed, in order that a
thousand soldiers should not seem to have been assembled in vain, and
lest they should return to their homes without having accomplished any-
thing worthy, they went to Caen, wasting the country thereabouts, and
tried to draw the garrison out of the fortress. But Robert the Count, who
greatly feared the factions of both sides, for that reason wisely shut himself
up with a hundred men-at-arms.!
Two knights, who sallied forth with forty men-at-arms, were killed,
but the expedition seems to have accomplished little. However,
from that time on, Geoffrey of Monmouth would have been ill-
advised to dedicate his Historia to Robert and Waleran together.
There is no evidence that the two earls ever became friends again
after this break. Three years later, before the battle of Lincoln, we
find Henry of Huntingdon, in the traditional style, making Robert
say to his troops just before the engagement: “Advancing against us
we have the Earl of Mellent, practiced in deceit, skilful in perfidy,
innate in whose heart is villainy, in whose mouth is falsehood, and
whose acts are weakness. Vainglorious in heart and boastful in
words, he is pusillanimous in deeds; the last to engage, the first to
retreat, slow to fight, swift to flee.” ? This, written after the event
(ca. 1145) by a close friend of Robert, certainly reflects the latter’s
opinion of Waleran in the years that followed and, as we shall see,
is a characterization of the man too largely justified by his acts
to be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Incidentally, it argues strongly
against the possibility that Waleran and Robert could have made
friends after this same battle, when Waleran ceased actively to sup-
port Stephen.
In June, 1139,? we find Waleran back in England at Oxford,
where he and his brother were acting as Stephen’s chief advisers.
For instance, in 1140,‘ Waleran’s nomination of Philip de Harcourt
1 Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. Eccles., xiii, 37 (ed. cit., V, 108, 109).
2 Procedit quoque contra vos comes Mellensis, doli callidus, fallendi artifex, cui innata
est in corde nequitia, in ore fallacia, in opere pigritia, corde gloriosus, ore magnificus,
opere pusillanimis, ad congrediendum ultimus, ad digrediendum primus, tardus ad pugnam,
velox ad fugam. Historia Anglorum, viii, 15 (ed. cit., pp. 269, 270).
* Cf. William of Malmesbury, Hist. Novella, ii, § 469, with Ordericus Vitalis, xiii, 40
(ed. cit., V, 100).
« Ordericus Vitalis, xiii, 42 (ed. cit., V, 123).
144 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
to the vacant see at Salisbury was accepted by the king against the
wishes of his own brother, Henry de Blois, bishop of Winchester,
who promoted the cause of their nephew, Henry de Sulli. The influ-
ence of the Earl of Mellent was at this time certainly at its height,
and his services had already been rewarded, late in 1139, by a grant
of the earldom of Worcester. On September 30, 1139,! Matilda and
Robert of Gloucester landed at Arundel with only one hundred and
forty knights, and the civil war began, which culminated m the
Battle of Lincoln, February 2, 1141. Waleran, one of Stephen’s
foremost leaders in the field, disgraced himself by fleeing precipi-
tately at the first onslaught, and Stephen himself was made a pris-
oner. However, the queen shortly thereafter (September fourteenth)
captured Robert, and both were released by mutual exchange.
Ordericus tells us specifically that, though Stephen’s brother Henry,
bishop of Winchester, turned against him, “Gualerannus the Count,
and William de Guarenna [his brother], and Simon [de Senlis, Count
of Northampton] adhered with many others to the queen, and
pledged themselves to fight manfully for the king and his heirs.” *
Thus, though Waleran ran away from the battle, he did not by any
means break with Stephen or his party.
So far, the sequence of events has been clear and simple. Robert
and Waleran, associated before Henry’s death, were for a period of
two years between 1136 and 1138 more or less active supporters of
King Stephen and were much in the public eye as such. Whatever
we may now know to the contrary from later events, Robert and
Waleran were to all outward appearances at that time two of the most
powerful and most prominent “pillars of the realm.” At no later
time can this be said of them, and especially not by one who sided
with Robert of Gloucester, as did Geoffrey of Monmouth. However,
after the Battle of Lincoln, the relation between the two men is by
no means clear, and we can only say that at no time are Robert and
the Earl of Mellent mentioned as together or as meeting each other.
Waleran no longer actively supported the king, and though he as-
sisted Geoffrey of Anjou, Matilda’s husband and enemy of Stephen,
1 William of Malmesbury, Hist. Novella, ii, § 478 (ed. cit., p. 555).
3 Hist. Eccles., xiii, 48 (ed. cit., V, 130).
ence
, > pfifactralerrit benricu adepta nino gguulac after,
oe.
«
Sechaba oor
y - modiaone gmuntcaca- Gael.
age karo a econ mat -phylatopbna m gremio {uo
gap cena fuay Cubalreate edocuncacdert uc in
u naire doimucont
oom pe
: me oe ie f aut auutprent ce tine ony gillents me,
J fa
ae ee
a ve ww
Oe atnar cade ‘
, ah:
‘eye a na thu opeamay+~ re
a
Pe dig AEN -
* 7 »
=
University Liprary (CAMBRIDGE, Ena.) MS. No. 1706, fol. Ir
WIGMIZEG DY ww y
—*
nn 2
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 145
in his siege of Rouen in 1143, there is no evidence that he was
prompted by any other motive than the obvious one of protecting
in the readiest way his own Norman fiefs from a dangerous neighbor,
who was on the spot and who had the military power to deprive
him of his remaining castles. It was probably for this reason, and
this reason only, that he made friends with Geoffrey, and was im-
mediately the gainer in so doing. But all through this campaign,
Robert was in England, and had no part in it. Furthermore, we
have already seen that a close friend of Robert, Henry of Huntingdon,
could write most disparagingly of the Earl of Mellent — scarcely
possible, had Waleran been Robert’s friend at the time. The com-
plications of feudal relations made changes of side frequent, espe-
cially when these were prompted by self-interest, rather than by
any principles of loyalty. Ordericus tells us that Waleran’s brother
Robert, Earl of Leicester, had, in 1141, shortly after the Battle of
Lincoln, “obtained a truce [from Geoffrey of Anjou] for himself and
Waleran his brother, until he should return from England.” ! Robert
of Torigni, who describes the siege of Rouen and Waleran’s relations
with Geoffrey, says merely that “Waleran count of Mellent, who was
superior to all the Norman nobility in strongholds, revenues, and
family connections, made a compact with Count Geoffrey of Anjou;
so that was ceded to him the castle of Montfort, which he had
possessed from the time of the death of King Henry.’’? It is obvi-
ous that Geoffrey was willing to pay for his support. Waleran, re-
lieved of personal danger, in return assisted Geoffrey to besiege and
reduce Rouen;— but no word occurs of his declaring himself, or
taking up arms directly, against King Stephen at this time, and in
no chronicle does his name again occur in conjunction with that of
Robert. Indeed, except for a brief sojourn in Normandy in the
summer of 1142, and so before the above compact with Geoffrey,’
Robert was actively campaigning in England, as said above, until
after Waleran left Normandy in 1145 on an extended crusade to the
1 HArst. Eccles., xiii, 48 (ed. ett., V, 182).
2 The Chronicle of Robert of Torigni, ed. by Richard Howlett, in Chronicles of the Reigns
of Stephen, Henry I1., and Richard I., Rolls Series, LK XXII (1889), iv, 142.
* William of Malmesbury, Hist. Novella, iii, §§ 519, 521 (ed. ctt., pp. 592, 594 resp.).
146 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
Holy Land.!- When Waleran returned to Normandy from this expe-
dition late in 1146, Robert’s power was broken, and very shortly
thereafter he died, still in England, in 1147. The fact that Waleran
later treated with Matilda and finally joined forces with her, does
not concern us, because this was after Robert’s death — not, in fact,
till 1150. At that time Stephen attacked Worcester, reducing the
town, but not the castle, which Waleran successfully defended
against him. In 1152, Stephen, however, attacked again, and this
time with success.
The whole course of events prior to Robert’s death leads, there-
fore, to the one conclusion, namely, that Geoffrey of Monmouth
could only have dedicated the Historia to both earls with any pos-
sible hope of winning their favor together, during the period of
twenty-six months between 1136 and 1138. lf we turn to the actual
text of the double dedication, the wording, as already suggested,
bears this out, and practically eliminates the possibility of a later
date. Furthermore, a comparison between the two double dedica-
tions, and the later single one to Robert alone, will make this clear,
and will establish which of the two double dedications came first in
point of time. For the sake of convenience, the two double dedica-
tions are printed below in parallel columns:
University Library (Cambridge) MS., No. 1706 Codex Bernensis, No. 568
Cum mecum multa et de multis
sepius animo reuoluens in hys-
toriam regum Britannie inciderem,
in mirum contuli quod infra men-
tionem quam de eis Gildas et Beda
luculento tractatu fecerant nichil
de regibus qui ante incarnationem
Christi inhabitauerant nichil etiam
de Arturo ceterisque conpluribus
Cum mecum multa et de multis
sepius animo reuoluens in hys-
toriam regum Britannie inciderem,
in mirum contuli quod infra men-
tionem quam de eis Gildas et Beda
luculento tractatu fecerant nichil
de regibus qui ante incarnationem
Christi inhabitauerant nichil etiam
de Arturo ceterisque conpluribus
10 qui post incarnationem successerunt qui post incarnationem successerunt
repperissem, cum et gesta eorum digna repperissem, cum et gesta eorum digna
1 Cf. the brief entry in Robert of Torigni, op. cit., p. 152, and the extended notices in
Chronicon V alassense written in 1181, ed. by F. Somménil, Rotomagi [Rouen] 1868. Waleran,
while on this crusade, in order to win safety from shipwreck, vowed that he would found a
monastery if he survived, and for once kept his vow, deeding a tract of swampy land for that
purpose on his return; cf. p. 184. See also the Appendix to the Fifth Report of the Royal Com-
mission on Historical Manuscripts, p. 301, col. a, where Waleran makes his brother, the Earl
of Leicester, and Willelmus de Bello Campo his representatives at Worcester during his
absence.
ls” »
ot CR A ate eee Lis 4 ty eR EES 5S ae car a
TS ake Se he
ae ee) ee lee Pe ee ee
s a *
Pee «
*
7 .
>" ~*~
~,
. a ‘1s
Pee * re KO, nO ee te ae eee
»’
»
>. ” :
72 E> oe 8S or es tee
>
. 2 a
.- .
LSPs |
~) che mm pap aren dhs Acwate cerita; “ato is | oad
: = au ontare rate oe tox dygna ‘ oad <
= sa ere Car mmferipra tocumcie,
f f ernst. en feron are 3 : ;
re
>=
79S eae
-
ee
ag St SE ee
+>
5 pF 8S cw
:
pe hie
J
te
: os,
“BAMA. gon Crganfridt monemn OTe ren— |
cenfeannt” creo. fi Ge mm me w=
cat henrrcat trftrss
.
it. qa
' ae at to or pre =*
‘tub pueria tea repre mt fb apt apaclearbortrenbant,
< Glatrum mote mee vam indht aos 7
| ene RE care rt ae
Codex Bernensis No. 568, fol. 18r
15
20
380
40
45
50
55
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
aeternitate laudis constarent et a
multis populis quasi inscripta
iocunde et memoriter predicarentur.
Talia mihi et de talibus multociens
cogitanti optulit Walterus
Oxenefordensis archidiaconus uir
in oratoria arte atque in exoticis
hystoriis eruditus quendam bri-
tannici sermonis librum uetustis-
simum, qui a Bruto primo rege Brito-
num usque ad Cadualadrum filium
Caduallonis actus omnium continue
et ex ordine perpulcris orationibus
proponebat. Rogatu itaque illius
ductus tametsi infra alienos
ortulos falerata uerba non col-
legerim, agresti tamen stilo pro-
priisque calamis contentus codicem
illum in latinum sermonem trans-
ferre curaui. Nam si ampullosis
dictionibus paginam illinissem
tedium legentibus ingererem dum
magis in exponendis uerbis quam in
hystoria intelligenda ipsos commo-
rari oportet. Opusculo igitur
meo Roberte dux Claudiocestrie
faueas, ut sic te doctore te moni-
tore corrigatur quod non ex
Galfridi Monemutensis fonticulo
censeatur exortum sed sale Minerue
tue conditum illius dicatur editio
quem Henricus illustris rex Anglorum
generauit, quem philosophia
liberalibus artibus erudiuit, quem
innata probitas in milicia militibus
prefecit, unde Britannia insula tib
nunc temporibus nostris ac si
alterum Henricum adepta interno
congratulatur affectu. Tu quoque
Galeranne consul Mellenti altera
regni nostri columpna operam
adhibeas tuam ut utriusque modera-
tione communicata editio in medium
producta pulchrius elucescat. Te
etenim ex illius celeberimi regis
Karoli stirpe progenitum
mater phylosophia in gremio
suo excepit scientiarumque suarum
subtilitatem edocuit ac deinde ut
in militaribus clareres exercitus
147
eternitate laudis constarent et a
multis populis quasi inscripta
iocunde et memoriter predicarent.
Talia mihi et de talibus multociens
cogitanti optulit Walterus
Oxinefordensis archidiaconus uir
in oratoria arte atque in exoticis
historiis eruditus quendam bri-
tannici sermonis librum uetustis-
simum qui a Bruto primo rege Brito-
num usque ad Cadualadrum filium
Caduallonis actus omnium continue
et ex ordine perpulcris orationibus
proponebat. Rogatu itaque illius
ductus tametsi infra alienos
ortulos falerata uerba non col-
legerim, agresti tamen stilo pro-
priisque calamis contentus codicem
illum in latinum sermonem trans-
ferre curaui. Nam si ampullosis
dictionibus paginem illinissem
tedium legentibus ingererem dum
magis in exponendis uerbis quam in
historia intelligenda ipsos commo-
rari oporteret. Opusculo igitur
meo Stephane rex Anglie
faueas, ut sic te doctore te moni-
tore corrigatur quod non ex
Gaufridi Monemutensis fonticulo
censeatur extortum set sale Minerue
tue conditum illius dicatur editio
culus Henricus illustris rex Anglorum
awnculus extitit, quem philosophia
liberalibus artibus erudiuit, quam
innata probitas in milicia militibus
prefecit, unde Britannia insula tibi
nunc temponbus nostris ac si
alterum Henricum adepta interno
congratulatur affectu. Tu quoque
Roberte consul Claudiocestrie altera
regni nostri columna operam
adibeas tuam ut 1 triusque modera-
tione communicata editio in medium
producta et pulcrius elucescat. T:
etenim ex illo celeberrimo rege
Henrico progenitum
mater philosophia in gremio
suo excepit scientiarumque suarum
subtilitatem edocuit ac deinde ut
in militaribus clareres exercitiis
148 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
ad castra regum direxit, ubi com- ad castra regum derexit, ubi com-
militones tuos audacter supergressus militones tuos audacter supergressus
et terror hostium existere et pro- et terror hostium insistere et pro-.
65 tectio tuorum esse paternis aus- tectio tuorum esse paternis aus-
piciis addidicisti. Fidelis itaque piciis addidicisti. Fidelis itaque
protectio tuorum existens me tuum protectio tuorum existens me tuum
uatem codicemque ad oblectamentum __uatem codicemque ad oblectamentum
tui editum sub tutela tua recipias tui editum sub tutela tua recipias
70 ut sub tegmine tam patulae arboris ut sub tegmine tam patule arboris
recubans calamum muse tue coram recubans calamum muse mee coram
inuidis atque improbis tuto inuidis atque improbis tuto
modulamine resonare queam. modulamine resonare queam.
9 conpluribus] quam pluribus Harlech MS(=H) 14 predicentur H 15 multociens om. H
18 Arte eruditusH exotiisH 19 historiis H eruditus] ususH 20 brittaniciH 21 brittonum H
% pulcris H 26 infra] inter H 935 historia H 36 oporteret H 87 Rodberte H 41 set H
46 militibus om. H 47brittannia H insulaom.H 50gratulatur H Tu quoque... resonarequeam
(50-73) om. H 61 exercitus Camb.] exerticiis (ut uidetur) supra lineam ef in marg. man. postertor.
The opening of the Historia (ll. 1-50 supra) in the Cambridge
manuscript may be translated as follows:
While oftentimes pondering things in my own mind, I happened to
turn to the history of the kings of Britain, and wondered that, in the men-
tion Gildas and Bede made of them in their excellent tractates, I found
nothing of those kings who lived before the Incarnation of Christ, nor even
of Arthur and many others with him who succeeded after the Incarnation,
though their deeds were worthy of eternal praise and, as if they had been
written, were proclaimed by many peoples with delight and from memory.
While I was thus thinking much about these things, Walter, Archdeacon
of Oxford, a man learned not only in the art of eloquence, but in unusual
histories, brought to me a certain most ancient book in the British language,
which set forth the deeds of them all from Brutus, first king of the Britons,
to Cadwalader, son of Cadwallo, in a continuous and regular order, and
in a very excellent style. Led on, therefore, by his request, and although
I have not myself acquired ornate expressions in foreign gardens, but for
all that —satisfied with a rustic style and my own proper reed-pens— I have
taken pains to translate that volume into the Latin language. For if I had
spread the page with bombastic discourse, I should have inflicted tedium
on my readers by requiring them to dwell more upon the meaning of the
words than upon an understanding of the history. Unto this little work
of mine, therefore, do thou, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, show favor, so
that, being corrected by thy instruction and advice, it may be rated to
have sprung, not from the poor little fountain of Geoffrey of Monmouth,
but, seasoned by the salt of thy wit, may be said to be the work of one
PERG aA BR ae ole aan ot alae
ee Bent Doe Te eer en
: "1
}
by
SUeTTTNC. ae if
une: he7 pra fab tert 1
1 nt
mn ufitacct
inc gpathte gn *)
metia orfterba —
Gs umiifit nanomls
are Bt dent ner cma oe doa ra
sipped scarab hrie ace
_ seinpla (aett CH marry y pale poe einen. mgmt:
~ yeligoft const mnt ei ie pian a”
» — daonetn Hane. Dc quinas mbabrannppht nanan
madam iat favomnte. prc cc feons. Gy qb
Sane ceca a mar nfoyao mare mfederune. donee uthione dutta
Sa Jo ripen deena tp dane oe a
¢
ae ee
eM Dae
pei: SES ne bh ee
- ~
we
> Oe 4
er eee or
“Ee #
Sa Psa
Se
ger
«. ~tneheee
oe, Rae
at lr
Es ee
Codex Rernensis No. 568, fol. 18 v
Digitized by Google
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 149
whom Henry, illustrious king of the English, bore, whom philosophy nur-
tured in the liberal arts, and whom an innate competence made superior to
warriors in the art of war, — wherefore the island of Britain now, in these
days, rejoices in thee with heartfelt affection, as if possessed of another
Henry.
At this point, ends the single dedication, represented by the great
majority of manuscripts and by all those in the British Museum, so
frequently quoted. However, in the manuscripts where the double
dedication to Robert and Waleran appears, there follows an addi-
tional paragraph, which, in the Cambridge manuscript ! (il. 50-73
supra) may be translated as follows:
And do thou also, Waleran, Count of Mellent, thou other pillar of
our realm, give thy aid, that, through the common patronage of both, when
presented to the world, this work may shine forth the more resplendently.
For Mother Philosophy has taken thee, a scion of that most illustrious king
Charles, to her bosom, and has trained thee in the exact knowledge of her
sciences. And further, to the end that thou mightest be famed in the accom-
plishments of a soldier, she has guided thee to the camp of kings, where,
fearlessly outstripping thy comrades, thou, under thy father’s auspices,
didst learn to be at once a terror to the enemy and the defender of thine
own. And being thus, as thou art, the loyal defender of thine own, take
under thy protection me, thy bard, and this book now published to give
thee pleasure; so that I, reclining under the shade of so spreading a tree,
may be able to make music on the pipe of thy muse, with harmonies that
are safe in the very face of men envious and malicious.
The Bern manuscript substitutes King Stephen’s name for that
of Robert, who in turn displaces Waleran. The significant sentences
(ll. 36-44) read, first: “Unto this little work of mine, therefore, do
thou, Stephen, King of England, show favour, so that it ... may
be said to be the work of him whom Henry, King of the English, thy
uncle, made prominent ...” and second (II. 50-53) : “Thou also, Robert,
Count of Gloucester, the other pillar of our realm, give thy aid... .”
The first point to be decided is which of these two double dedica-
tions was written first. The second, is to discover, as nearly as pos-
sible, from internal evidence, the exact date when either one was
1 As also in all the discovered manuscripts with this dedication, rotographs of which are
in my possession.
150 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
written, in order to corroborate what has already been adduced from
the general historic setting and the foregoing study of the relations
of the three men involved. This, in turn, will enable us to fix with
greater precision the earliest date of publication of the Historia itself.
Taking up the Robert-Waleran dedication, we notice first that
the two paragraphs balance each other, and that the praise bestowed
upon Robert (“whom philosophy nurtured in the liberal arts,’”’ and
“‘whom an innate competence made superior to warriors in the art
of war’) reappears with substantially the same thought, merely
changed in wording, when applied to Waleran (“Mother Philosophy
... has trained thee in the exact knowledge of her sciences,” and
“*to the end that thou mightest be famed in the accomplishments of
a soldier, she has guided thee to the camp of kings”). There was to
be no jealousy between the two patrons, who are, as it were, placed
on an equal footing. Second, the concluding phrase of this first
paragraph, appearing in all the dedications, namely: “wherefore the
island of Britain now, in these days, rejoices in thee with heartfelt
affection, as if possessed of another Henry,” certainly implies that
Henry I was dead. No one would be seeking to hail a second Henry
while that monarch was still alive. We may therefore safely date
the writing of this sentence of the preface (which applies equally
to all three forms of dedication) after December 1, 1135, when
Henry died. Furthermore, this sentence, as already pointed out,
could only apply to Robert upon his landing in England after Easter
(March twenty-second), 1136. Towards the end of April, 1136, at
Oxford, he signed Stephen’s famous Charter of Liberties, having
taken an oath of allegiance to the king; and as we have seen, it was
at Oxford that Geoffrey appears to have lived, and to have been
““magister.”’ During the civil wars that followed, it would have been
strange, indeed, to write in one paragraph that Britain “now, in
these days, rejoices in thee [Robert]”’ — and in the next paragraph
to praise Waleran, the most powerful supporter of the king, and
open enemy of Robert.
Similarly, in the second paragraph devoted to Waleran, Geoffrey
obviously stresses Waleran’s “loyalty” — “the second pillar of the —
realm,” “‘the defender of thine own,” and “‘the loyal defender of
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 151
thine own.” In view of his disgraceful flight at the Battle of Lincoln
in 1141, and subsequent non-support of either Stephen or Matilda,
these phrases could only have been penned before the battle. It
would seem that Geoffrey, a priest, had been won over early to the
side of Stephen, the king’s first adherents being, in fact, churchmen,
secured by Henry de Blois, Bishop of Winchester, Papal Legate,
and brother of Stephen. Having espoused the cause of Stephen, it
would have been a matter of rejoicing to Geoffrey when Robert,
after some hesitation, came to England and at least appeared to
support Stephen; while he would naturally turn to Waleran as the
next most powerful supporter of the king, betrothed to the king’s
daughter, and loyally fighting his battles for him in Normandy.
In this connection, it is also noteworthy that Robert and Waleran
are fitly described at this time as twin “pillars of the realm,” both
being powerful earls, and both supporting Stephen. However, in
the dedication to King Stephen and Robert in the Bern manuscript,
it would be a strange thing to place an earl on a par with the king,
speaking of them equally as “pillars of the realm.”” The king rep-
resents in his person, and 7s, in a sense, the realm — only loyal sub-
jects can be called its “pillars.”” Therefore, the inference at this
point seems clear that the Bern dedication to King Stephen and
Robert is a hasty rewriting of the more natural Cambridge dedica-
tion to Robert and Waleran.
Before we begin to compare more fully the double dedication
in the Cambridge MS. with that of Bern, one more phrase re-
quires to be noted, namely, that “Mother Philosophy” guided
Waleran “‘to the camp of kings, where, fearlessly outstripping thy
comrades, thou, under thy father’s auspices, didst learn to be at once
a terror to the enemy and the defender of thine own.” This phrase,
with all its rhetoric, applies correctly enough to Waleran, who, in his
youth, served with his father in the camp of Henry I, and now,
while still only thirty-one or two, was making a name for himself
fighting under Stephen. It would have no point, however, if ap-
plied to Robert, as we shall see. Therefore, once more, the infer-
ence seems clear that the Robert-Waleran dedication was written
first, and that the Bern dedication was a hasty rewriting of this.
152 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
Turning now to the double dedication in the Bern manuscript,
we find that, where Robert of Gloucester held first place, King
Stephen, as was fitting, has been substituted, while Waleran is dis-
placed entirely, to make room for Robert. As a result of these
changes, several awkwardnesses of phrase and positive incongruities
occur, which, in the first paragraph struck Madden so forcibly that
he wrote that they were done “in so artificial a manner, and with so
little disguise, that it is surprising how any writer would have ven-
tured on such a step.” ! He did not analyze the second paragraph
at all. Madden adds that “The terms of praise, in which the Earl
of Gloucester had been addressed, in regard to his proficiency in the
liberal arts, were well merited, and are amply borne out by the con-
temporary testimony of William Malmesbury, but could hardly be
applicable to Stephen, except by licence of the grossest flattery.”
Not having the key of an earlier dedication to Robert and Waleran —
which had been hastily reapplied — Madden could offer no expla-
nation, though his strictures are entirely justified and seem very
clearly to suggest that the dedication to Robert in the first para-
graph was written first and then hastily altered when an opportunity
occurred to dedicate a copy to the king as well. Once more, it is
almost inevitable to point to the exact time when Stephen was in
Oxford, April, 1136, as the likely occasion when we may surmise that
Geoffrey would have seen his royal patron, would have offered him
the completed Historia, and may well have presented it personally
to the king. The king, pleased with so notable a contribution to
British history, may even have asked for a copy, and hence the
hasty dedication to him. The general appearance of the Bern manu-
script, the number of hands, the separate leaf for the dedication, all
bear this out.?
1 Archaeological Journal, XV (1858), $01. |
2 It would be a fascinating conjecture to suppose that in this separate preliminary
leaf in a hand different from any others in the manuscript, we have an actual example of
Geoffrey’s own autograph. The scribe having begun the first line, Geoffrey took the pen
from him, and having placed the name of King Stephen first, himself changed a few words
only, as he wrote, so as to make the familiar sentences conform in obvious essentials to the
new and royal patron. It is a striking coincidence that the concluding sentences of the envoy
at the end, also appear to be in a different hand from that immediately preceding, as if added
perhaps for the first time in this very copy apparently made for King Stephen.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 153
The Bern dedication changes Roberte, dux Claudiocestrie into
Stephane, rer Angle, and alters quem Henricus, tllustris rex Anglorum
generauit into cuius Henricus, rex Anglorum awnculus extitu. The
awkwardness of the last phrase, in its context, is manifest:
Unto this little work of mine, therefore, do thou, Stephen,
King of England, show favour, so that, being corrected by thy in-
struction and advice, it may be rated to have sprung, not from the
poor little fountain of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but, seasoned by
the salt of thy wit, may be said to be the work of him whose uncle
was Henry, illustrious king of the English, whom philosophy nur-
tured in the liberal arts... .
The natural and rhetorical sequence of the earlier dedication —
“‘whom Henry bore” and “whom philosophy nurtured””—is broken
by the intrusive eztiétt, and though Geoffrey of Monmouth’s thought
is clearly that Stephen is rendered conspicuous or prominent because
of his close relation to King Henry I, the phrasing is less felicitous.
The Bern text, therefore, is a rewriting, and a careless rewriting, of
the dedication to Robert.
In the next paragraph, the rewriting is even more obvious, and
it is here that we find the final proof that the dedication to Waleran
came first. For Galeranne consul Mellentt we find Roberte consul [no
longer duz] Claudtocestrie; and here Waleran is correctly described
as “‘the scion of that most illustrious King Charles,” and, since he was
descended from Charlemagne through his mother’s family, we now
find ex illo celeberrumo rege Henrico progenitum “‘born of that most
celebrated King Henry.” These phrases fit more naturally than those
above; but what point is there in describing in succeeding sentences
Robert, a king’s own son, as guided by Mother Philosophy “to the
camp of kings”? Such words apply, not to a prince of the blood,
but to some noble who has luckily or successfully achieved a place
at court. And though Robert was always a favourite of Henry, he
never even remotely served in the camp of King Stephen. Why,
then, the plural ad castra regum? Waleran, however, served under
both Henry and Stephen. Moreover, the next phrases are equally
absurd when applied to Robert— “where, fearlessly outstripping thy
comrades, thou, under thy father’s auspices, didst learn to be at once
154 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
a terror to the enemy and the defender of thine own.”’ A favourite
prince does not outstrip his “comrades” —he by birth excels them—
whereas Waleran did outstrip other young nobles in making a place
for himself. Finally, a prince does not need “his father’s auspices”’
to win for him a place at court, whereas Waleran, under the auspices
of his influential father, Robert de Beaumont, undoubtedly gained
his first introduction to King Henry’s court. Nor can Robert be
said at this time to be the “loyal defender of thine own.” He was
domg no fighting, on his own or Stephen’s behalf, whereas Waleran
was actively and successfully campaigning in Normandy, protecting
Stephen’s continental fiefs, and recapturing lost castles.
The whole cast of these sentences, therefore, seems very clearly
to point to the Bern double dedication as a hasty rewriting of the
earlier double dedication to Robert and Waleran. Once this is es-
tablished with a fair degree of certainty, we note the phrase in the
second paragraph — “... take under thy protection me, thy bard,
' and this book published to give thee pleasure’’; and for “published”
we may properly say “‘now published,” since the Latin editum means
the actual issuance, or first appearance, of a work. We have, there-
fore, the specific statement in this early dedication that the work
was just published, which disappeared when this last paragraph was
omitted and when the dedication was confined to Robert alone.
There does not seem to be any likelihood that the single dedica-
tion to Robert of Gloucester actually represents the first edition, and
that both the double dedications came slightly later in an attempt
to win favour in additional directions — an effort given up as unsuc-
cessful. The following arguments against this seem to be conclusive:
(1) the balancing of the two parts seems to indicate careful and
skilful writing; (2) the Cambridge manuscript is without reference
in the envoy to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon,
which, once written and retained in all but one other manuscript,
would not have been omitted in this one; (3) if Robert had seen the
work dedicated to himself alone, and after that to Waleran (or even
to the king) also, he might not have been pleased; whereas to be
chosen as the only patron, dropping Stephen and Waleran, both his
enemies, was an additional (albeit subtle) piece of flattery; (4) by
—
os i
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia 155
far the largest number of manuscripts have but the single dedication,
and these appear to represent a later and more carefully written or
polished version of the Historia; and (5) the meaning of editum
(‘now published’) in the last paragraph, seems conclusive, when
taken with the above. This phrase, of course, disappeared with the
dropping of the second paragraph, and since this represents the later
version of the Historia, it is quite proper that the word editum
should no longer be used in a later edition.
In conclusion, the double dedication to Robert and Waleran, rep-
resented by at least seven manuscripts, which has been overlooked
for several centuries, and which appears here for the first time in
print, points by a clear and simple chain of contemporary evidence
to the actual date of composition of Geoffrey’s Historia. Like the
Bern double dedication, it could not have been written after June-
July, 1138. On comparison with the Bern dedication, it gives con-
clusive evidence of having been the earlier draft of the two. While
either double dedication might have been written any time before
June-July, 1138, the probabilities are that Geoffrey would have
hailed Robert’s advent no very long time after the latter landed in
England just after Easter in 1136, and before difficulties had begun
to arise between him and the king. Since King Stephen and Robert
visited Oxford together, and since Robert took his oath of allegiance
to the king there in April, 1136, and since we have every reason to
believe that Geoffrey himself lived as “magister”’ and composed his
Historia in Oxford, it is a highly probable supposition that it was
precisely on this occasion that Geoffrey rededicated a special copy
of his work to King Stephen and Robert — an alteration made all
the easier by the absence, at that time, of Waleran, who was, at
least temporarily, dropped as a patron. The dedication to Robert
and Waleran, Earl of Mellent, therefore, would seem to have been
written early in April, 1136, followed within a few weeks by the
special dedication to the king and Robert. The single dedication to
Robert alone, which appears in by far the greatest number of manu-
scripts, can hardly have preceded the double dedications, since the
latter expressly describe themselves as ‘‘now published,” a state-
ment which would not have been added had the work already ap-
156 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia
peared without that phrase. Moreover, it is unlikely that Geoffrey
would have dedicated a work first to Robert alone, then with him
to two other patrons — Waleran and Robert, and the king and
Robert — and finally have returned to Robert alone.
Geoffrey’s Historva was published at first without any reference
to Henry of Huntingdon or William of Malmesbury, but the source
of his work having been challenged, he added a paragraph asserting
in unmistakable terms that he had an old book which they did not
possess and which he had translated.
Co.tumpra UNIVERSITY.
THE LITERARY BACKGROUND OF THE
CHANTEFABLE
By JOHN R. REINHARD
HE new edition of Aucassin et Nicolette by Mario Roques! once
more offers occasion for the discussion of its peculiar literary form,
that of alternate prose and verse. In his Introduction, Roques briefly
discusses “‘cette forme originale et unique dans la littérature du
moyen Age,” ? and after rejecting the various definitions of Aucassin
as a “‘roman,”’ a “conte,” a ‘“‘nouvelle,” a “fabliau,” and a “récil,”’ he
arrives at the conclusion that it is a “mime.” * If a technical name
“must be found for the type of literature which Aucassin represents,
why not call it, as did its author, a cantefable? If it is felt that this
term needs explanation, we can find none better than that of Gaston
Paris, who has definitely explained the chantefable as “ce mélange
de prose et de vers, de morceaux ot |’on chante, et de morceaux ot
Yon dit et conte et fable.” 4
So far as we know, Aucassin et Nicolette is the only specimen of
French literature in the Middle Ages which is composed of verse and
music and prose, and thus it is rightly called unique. But if we view
the chantefable as being in its elementary form simply a literary
style in which prose and verse operate together as a unit in narrative
function, and if we disregard the special characteristic of musical
notation on the manuscript of Awcassin, then we shall be able to
match it with other pieces of literature written in this style in both
earlier and later times. Examples of prose-and-verse in which the
verse is purely adventitious and does not form an integral part of
the narrative vehicle have not been included among the following
quotations. That Aucassin represents a type of literature which in
France was eventually attracted to the theatre, is a matter we shall
not discuss. Our interest in the document lies not so much in its
1 Aucassin et Nicolette: Chantefable du xiti* siecle, éditée par Mario Roques (Paris: Cham-
pion, Classiques francais du moyen Age, 1925).
2 The italics in this quotation are mine.
3 Roques, op. cit., pp. iv—-vi.
4 G. Paris, Poémes et Légendes du moyen Age (Paris, 1900), p. 99.
157
158 The [nterary Background of the Chantefable
successors as in its literary antecedents, and these, we shall show,
were of various types.
Scholars who have treated the various problems offered by
Aucassin et Nicolette have not neglected the matter of its form.!
A variety of opinion prevails on this subject. G. Griber (Grundriss,
II, i, 529) and H. Heiss ? consider the form to be the invention of
the author. Ten Brink explained the prose as having grown out of
@ commentary on the verse.? H. Suchier seems to consider the
form as a transition stage between the verse novel and the prose
novel.‘ Other scholars are of the opinion that the form of Aucassin
derives from Arabic or other oriental literary models. W. Hertz * in
his notes to Aucassin et Nicolette gives some oriental analogies. K.
Burdach seems to hold this theory also.® It is very ably, though
inconclusively, supported by L. Jordan,’ whereas W. Suchier in the
Exnleitung to his ninth edition of Aucassin et Nicolette reverts to
Griber’s opinion as to the form, while postulating an Arabico-
Byzantine source for the story.* A still different opinion as to the
origin of the mixed prose and verse form of Aucassin is held by
W. Meyer-Liibke.’ He discards the opinions of Gréber, Suchier, and
Hertz, mentions the Provencal razos and the Vita Nuova as showing
similar form. But when considering the origin of Old-French narra-
tive, says Meyer-Liibke, we are inclined to look to the west and to
the Celts, whose literature likewise shows prose interspersed with
verse. He then quotes several passages (without references) from
R. Thurneysen’s Sagen aus dem alten Irland.'°
1 See the bibliography listed by M. Roques on pp. xxix—xxxvi of the work cited above.
2 “Die Form der Cantefable,”’ Zs. f. franz. Spr. u. Lit., XLII (1912), 250 ff.
+ B. ten Brink, Dauer und Klang (Strassburg, 1879), p. iv.
‘ H. Suchier-A. Birsch Hirschfeld, Geschichte der franzisischen [nteratur (2. Aufl., Leipzig
und Wien: Bibliographisches Institut, 1913), I, 226, 227. Although he does not say so, he
may have had in mind the Ninus fragments and the erotica of Parthenius.
Tt ® Spelmannsbuch (3d ed., Berlin, 1905), pp. 435-455.
6 Sutzungsberichte der kgl. preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. K1., 1904, p. 899;
1918, p. 1097, note 1.
7 “Die Quelle des Aucassin,” Zs. f. roman. Philol., XLIV (1924), 291 ff.
8 H. Brunner, Uber Aucassin und Nicolette (Halle, 1880), pointed out that Aucassin = Al-
Ka4sim, the name of a Moorish king who ruled Cordova between 1018 and 1021.
f° “Aucassin und Nicolette,’ Zs. f. roman. Philol., XXXIV (1910), 513 ff.
10 Better Celtic illustrations of prose mixed with verse, in which the latter is an indis-
pensable and even dramatic part of the narrative, may be found in English in J. Dunn’s trans-
The Interary Background of the Chantefable 159
But this scholar’s Irish parallels prove no more than do Hertz’s
oriental analogues. Meyer-Liibke might have quoted — as he does
not — numerous passages from Old-Norse literature, of which mixed
prose and verse is one of the outstanding stylistic characteristics.'
That Aucassin et Nicolette owes its form to oriental, Celtic, or
Old-Norse literature still remains to be proved by documentary evi-
dence. On the other hand,. it seems to be a reasonable conjecture
that the mediaeval artistic author, where he did not invent — and
he was not inventive, whatever other virtues he may have possessed
— followed the guidance of familiar literary models. So far as the
present writer is aware, the Mohammedan Empire, Ireland, Iceland,
however many stories and plots they may have furnished, did not
contribute any traditions of literary workinanship to the mediaeval
world.2?, The mediaeval author did not deliberately look into far
corners for literary guides: rarely did he possess the learning that
would have enabled him to do so, even if he had thought of it.
What he did do was, in our opinion, to make use of what lay ready
to his hand — the literary traditions of antiquity in which he had
been reared. The aim of this article is to show what literary tradi-
tions of Greece and Rome lay behind the prose-and-verse form of
writing as illustrated by Aucassin et Nicolette.
If the form of Aucassin et Nicolette has piqued the interest of
students of French literature, the form of the Veta Nuova, which
. Dante followed again in the Convito, has piqued that of students of
Italian literature. From Dante and his contemporaries, Francesco
da Barberino and Brunetto Latini, it is but a step to Sedulius Scotus
lation of the Tdin Bé Cualnge (London: Nutt, 1914). For the Irish text of this, together with
a German translation, see edition of E. Windish, Die altirische Heldensage Tdin Bé Ctalnge
(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1905).
1 It would be tedious and pedantic to cite at length; one may mention Howard the Halt,
The Banded Men, The Ere-Dwellers, and other pieces translated by Morris and Magnisson in
the Saga Library. For a detailed study of prose-and-verse in Old-Norse literature the reader
is referred to H. A. Bellows, The Relations between Prose and Metrical Composition in Old »
Norse Literature (Harvard diss., 1910). The present state of critical opinion — with the
exception of Jordan’s article mentioned above — has been admirably summed up by Roques,
op. cit., pp. vii-x. ?
2 The theory that derives Provencal poetry from Arabic poetry is now no longer largely §@ b ‘
credited.
160 The Interary Background of the Chantefable
(fl. ca. 850), and another step to Boéthius and Martianus Capella,
with whom we have arrived at the borders of Roman literature.
Continuing our search backward through the centuries we are halted
by the hilarious personalities of Lucius Apuleius and Petronius
Arbiter, with the latter’s somewhat heavier contemporary, Seneca
the Younger. But our search does not end here, for Cicero directs
our attention to Varro and Menippus.!
With Menippus of Gadara, who flourished ca. 280 B.c., our quest
comes to an end. He was the author, and apparently the originator,
as far as the Occident is concerned,’ of a type of literature in mixed
prose and verse called after him the Satura Menippea.* In this style
*‘he interspersed jocular and commonplace topics with moral maxims
and philosophical doctrines, and may have added contemporary pic-
tures, though this is uncertain.”” His works seem to have perished
almost completely.‘ Still we may perhaps judge his style, even
though imperfectly, from the Menippean Satires of Varro, who, as
we have seen, imitated him.
The Saturae Menippeae of M. Terentius Varro (116-28 B.c.) are
written in mixed prose and verse and sometimes alternate prose and
verse. He treats all kinds of subjects just as they come to hand,
“often with much grossness, but with sparkling point.”” Though the |
Saturae originally extended to one hundred and fifty books, only
fragments now remain, comprising 591 lines in all. This fragmentary
state makes illustration difficult, but the piece called Est Modus
Matulae may serve our purpose. This seems to be an altercation
1 Academica, i, 2. See also Quintilian, Institutiones, x, 1, 95, Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae,
li, 18.
2 The Book of Judges, for example, is written in prose-and-verse.
3 C. Wachsmuth, Sillographorum graecorum reliquiae (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), p. 79, writes:
Hic igitur Menippus, quem acerbissime philosophos mortuos irridere videmus in Luciani
scriptis, vivos irrisse audimus ex Diogene apud Lucian., mort. dialog I 1, conscripsit ad philoso-
phos potissimum sigillandos satiras prosa oratione eam variavit immixtis diversi generis ver-
sibus parodiis facetiis. quod ita sese habere, etsi cetera omnia deessent testimonia, iam satis
demonstraretur eo quod Varro Menippeus vocatus est ob saturas cynicas, quas ille Menippeas
appellavit et composuit, ut ipse ait, ‘Menippum imitatus, non interpretatus.’
4 I have not been able to find, as W. C. Wright directs in her History of Greek Literature
(New York: American Book Co., 1907), p. $78, any fragments of Menippus under Bion in
C. Wachsmuth’s work cited above; I do find, however, this statement on p. 85 of the Silo-
graphorum: “‘Fati autem invidia factum est, ut Menippi Meliagrique orovdoyeNolwp libro-
rum paene nihil sit relictum.”’
The Interary Background of the Chantefable 161
between a partisan of wine-drinking and a prohibitionist who la-
ments the bad example set by the gods.
I. vino nihil iucundius quisquam bibit:
hoc aegritudinem ad medendam invenerunt,
hoc hilaritatis dulce seminarium,
hoc continet coagulum convivia
IV. dolia atque apothecas, tricliniaris, Melicas, Calenas obbas et
Cumanos calices
V. _ non vides ipsos deos, siquando volunt gustare vinum, derepere
ad hominum fana et tamen tum ipsi illi Libero simpuio vinum
dari? !
Here we see prose and verse acting together in narrative function
in spite of the fragmentary state of the quotation. A better illustra-
tion of the Menippean style is given by the A pocolocyntosis of Seneca
(3-65 a.p.). This ‘Pumpkinification’ of the Emperor Claudius “‘is
a bitter satire on the apotheosis of that heavy prince.” When Clau-
dius appears in heaven, Hercules is told off to interview him.
VII. Tum Hercules ‘audi me’ inquit ‘tu desine fatuari. venisti huc,
ubi mures ferrum rodunt. citius mihi verum, ne tibi alogias excu-
tiam.’ et quo terribilior esset, tragicus fit et ait:
“exprome propere, sede qua genitus cluas,
hoc ne peremptus stipite ad terram accidas;
haec clava reges saepe mactavit feros.
quid nunc profatu vocis incerto sonas?
quae patria, quae gens mobile eduxit caput?
edissere.’
haec satis animose et fortiter, nihilo minus mentis suae non est et
timet pwpod xAnyqv. Claudius ut vidit virum valentem, oblitus
nugarum intellexit neminem Romae sibi parem fuisse, illic non
habere se idem gratiae: gallum in suo sterquilino plurimum posse.
itaque quantum intellegi potuit, haec visus est dicere: ?
Here we see more clearly than in Varro that the verse continues
and advances the narrative in prose. The fact that the prose-and-
verse style was used by Menippus, Varro, Seneca, and, in a some-
1 Cf. Petronts Saturae et Liber Priapeorum, 5th ed., F. Bucheler-W. Heraeus (Berlin: Weid-
mann, 1912), pp. 198, 194.
2 Bucheler-Heraeus, ed. cit., pp. 256, 257.
162 The Interary Background of the Chantefable
what different fashion, by Petronius as a vehicle for satire is not preju-
dicial to the purpose for which these passages are quoted. We have
already been told that the form was used as a vehicle for drama in
Aucassin et Nicolette; later we shall see it used as a medium of literary
criticism and didactics also.
_ In 65 a.p. Petronius Arbiter, declining to “endure the suspense
of hope and fear,” himself opened his veins in a bath, bequeathing
to his master Nero — so the story goes —a fearful revenge in the
Satiricon. The incident of Encolpius’s rage at the perfidy of Ascyltos
and Giton will illustrate Petronius’s use of the prose-and-verse style.
LXXX. ... fulminatus hac pronuntiatione, sic ut eram, sine gladio in
lectulum decidi, et attulissem mihi damnatus manus, si non inimici victoriae
invidissem. egreditur superbus cum praemio Ascyltos et paulo ante carissi-
mum sibi commilitonem fortunaeque etiam similitudine parem in loco
peregrino destituit abiectum.
nomen amicitiae sic, quatenus expedit, haeret;
calculus in tabula mobile ducit opus.
cum fortuna manet, vultum servatis, amici;
cum cecidit, turpi vertitis ora fuga.
grex agit in scaena mimum: pater ille vocatur,
filius hic, nomen divitis ille tenet.
mox ubi ridendas inclusit pagina partes,
vera redit facies, dum simulata perit.
LXXXI. nec diu tamen lacrimis indulsi.... !
By the time of Lucius Apuleius (125 (?)-200 (?) a.p.), the prose-
and-verse style was no longer a novelty in Latin literature. It may
have been used in other Milesian tales — now lost to us — than
those of Petronius. The use made of it in the Metamorphoseon rep-
resents rather a survival than an active continuation of the style.
Since there is only one poem in the whole work (iv, 22) — and that
an oracle, which would naturally be pronounced in verse — space
need not be taken to quote from Apuleius here.
Somehow or other the style was kept alive in Latin literature
for the next two hundred years, so that ca. 410-427 Martianus
1 Bticheler-Heraeus, ed. cit., p. 56. A still better illustration is found in chapter CX XXII,
ed. cul., pp. 102 ff.
The Interary Background of the Chantefable 163
Capella was able to use it with vigor and effect in his de Nuptits
Philologiae et Mercuri.! The following passage from that fanciful
allegory describes the bridal array of the doctissima virgo Philologia:
... At cingulum, quo pectus annecteret, sibi prudens mater exsoluit et,
ne Philologia ipsius Phronesis careret ornatibus, eius pectori, quo uerius
comeretur, apponit. calceos praeterea ex papyro textili subligauit, nequid
eius membra pollueret morticinum. acerra autem multo aromate grauidata
eademque candenti manus uirginis onerantur.
et iam tunc roseo subtexere sidera peplo
coeperat ambrosium promens Aurora pudorem,
cum creperum lux alma micat, gemmata Dione
cum nitet, aurato uel cum fit Phosphorus astro.
tunc candens tenero glaciatur rore pruina
et matutina greges quatiunt in pascua caulas,
languida mordaces cum pulsant pectora curae
et fugit expulsus Lethaea ad litora somnus.
Ecce ante fores quidam dulcis sonus multifidis suauitatibus cietur,
quem Musarum conuenientium chorus impendens nuptialibus sacramentis
modulationis doctae tinnitibus concinebat.?
A greater man and a greater literary artist than Martianus was
Anicius Manlius Boéthius Severinus, ca. 480-524. The richness of
the Consolatio Philosophiae makes the selection of an illustrative
passage difficult, but Prosa 2 (ad fin.) and Metrum 2 of Book ii may
serve our purpose. Attention is called to the fact that the prose
and verse are exceptionally close knit, and that the latter not only
advances the narrative, but invests it with a dramatic intensity:
Nonne adulescentulus dotots wifous rov pev ta xaxav tov 8’ érepov tdwy
in Jouis limine iacere didicisti? Quid si uberius de bonorum parte sumpsisti?
Quid si a te non tota discessi? Quid si haec ipsa mei mutabilitas iusta tibi
causa est sperandi meliora? Tamen ne animo contabescas et intra commune
omnibus regnum locatus proprio uiuere iure desideres.
Si quantas rapidis flatibus incitus
Pontus uersat harenas
Aut quot stelliferis edita noctibus
Caelo sidera fulgent
1 Ed. A. Dick, Martianus Capella (Liepzig: Teubner, 1925).
2 Ed. cit., pp. 48, 49.
164 The Interary Background of the Chantefable
Tantas fundat opes nec retrahat manum
Pleno copia cornu,
Humanum miseras haud ideo genus
Cesset flere querellas.
Quamuis uota libens excipiat deus
Multi prodigus auri
Et claris auidos ornet honoribus,
Nil iam parta uidentur,
Sed quaesita uorans saeua rapacitas
Altos pandit hiatus.
Quae iam praecipitem frena cupidinem
Certo fine retentent,
Largis cum potius muneribus fluens
Sitis ardescit habendi?
Numquam diues agit qui trepidus gemens
Sese credit egentem.!
But we are still far from the year 1225. Is there anything be-
tween the beginning of the sixth century and the beginning of the
thirteenth which bridges the gap? Did Martianus and Boéthius,
representing the culmination of an anterior period, also fructify a
succeeding one? Or did the tradition of the prose-and-verse style
sink too far beneath the surface of literary usage to have any effect
on such a work as Aucassin et Nicolette? The facts are that Marti-
anus’s manual was constantly studied in the schools, wherever there
was a school, from Charlemagne’s revival of studies throughout the
Middle Ages. Indeed, the Schoolmen occupied themselves with a
controversy over the respective claims of the Classics themselves and
those of the Liberal Arts as represented by the de Nuptiis. It was
a favorite book of Joannes Scottus (ca. 810-ca. 875), who wrote a
commentary on it. In the same century Martianus was attacked by
Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, and Remi of Auxerre commented on
him.? In the tenth century Walter of Speier shows acquaintance with
his work; Notker Labeo (ft 1022) translated it. Saxo Grammaticus
1 Ed. H. F. Stewart and E. K. Rand (London: Loeb Library, 1918), pp. 180, 182.
2 John the Scot’s commentary on Martianus, discovered by Hauréau among the ninth
century MSS once belonging to the monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Notices et Extraits
des manuscrits de la Bibliothéque nationale (Paris, 1862), XX (2), 1 ff.), further attests the
familiarity with him in this century.
The Interary Background of the Chantefable 165
in the twelfth century copied his prosimetrum in the Gesta Danorum.
Alain de Lille shows his influence in the Anti-Claudzanus.
As in the case of Martianus, the tradition and influence of Boéthius
was constant throughout the Middle Ages. Sedulius Scottus (fl. ca.
850) composed a Liber de Rectoribus Christvanis, modelling the form on
the Consolatio. He begins his work with a poem, and recapitulates
the contents of each of the twenty prose chapters, except the last,
in verse. King Alfred the Great made a translation of the Consolatio
about 888. Provencal literature contains a version of it in 257 deca-
syllables, dated ca. 1000. Alfanus, Archbishop of Salerno (1058-
1085), imitated Boéthius’s verse. Notker Labeo translated some of
his tracts. In the twelfth century his prosimetrum was copied by
Bernard Silvester of Tours in his de Mundi Universitate. Alain de
Lille ({1203) shows direct influence from the Consolatio in the mixed
prose and verse of his de Planctu Naturae. It was translated into
French in the twelfth century by Simon de Fraisne, and in the thir-
teenth by Jean de Meung. The book was the constant companion of
Dante’s maturity. If the Schoolmen had not read what lay behind
them, namely, the literature of Rome, what would they have had to
read?
Thus we see that the use in Latin of a style of literary composi-
tion in mixed prose and verse was constant in western Europe from
the time of Cicero to the death of Alain de Lille in 1203. The author
of Aucassin could hardly have avoided encountering the style at
home: certainly he did not need to search for it abroad, in the liter-
ature of the Celts or the Arabs.
If, now, we were able to find a document written in this style
which showed musical notation as well, we should have a still better
model for Aucassin et Nicolette. It may be that such a document does
exist in the Psalter of Louis the German, wherein certain metra from
Boéthius’s Consolatio have been set to music. This document, which is
to be found in a Berlin manuscript, I have not been able to consult.’
But it was not only in Latin that prosimetrum was cultivated in
western Europe. That cursor mundi, Brunetto Latini (1210-12947),
1 Cf. M. Manitius, Geschichte der Lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Mtinchen: Beck,
1911), I, 38 (‘‘Fortleben der Consolatio’’).
166 The Interary Background of the Chantefable
resorted to the use of it for didactic purposes in the work known to
us as the Tesoretto.. He intended to write this key to the Tesoro
entirely in verse, but in chapter five he tells us that, ‘when he wishes
to treat of things that would be obscure in verse, he will dispose the
matter in prose so that it may be understood and learned.’ ITllus-
trations are not particularly good, but the following quotation from
this chapter will show how these scraps of prose were inserted:
Che ad ogni creatura
Dispose per misura,
Secondo ’] convenente
Suo corso e sua semente;
Ma tanto ne so dire,
Ch’ i’ le vidi ubbidire,
Finire e ’ncominciare,
Morire e ’ngenerare.
E sappiate che tutte le cose che hanno cominciamento, cioé che furo
fatte di alcuna materia, si aranno fine.”
The style was used for didactic purposes by Francesco da Bar-
berino (1264-1348) also, in Del Reggimento e Costumi dt Donna.*
In this book of edification the author aims to instruct women in the
way in which they should behave under various circumstances. A
passage from Parte prima touching the problem of talkativeness will
serve as an illustration.
III. Una donzella parlava molto. Una fiata a tavola disse uno suo
balio: “Tu parli per tutti quegli chessono a tavola.” Disse ella:
““Mesere, costoro sanno parlare, e perd si possono posare; ma 10
non so, siché mi conviene parlare per imprendere. . . .””
1 I have not been able to consult a complete edition of this document; the edition of
B. Wiese in Zs. f. roman. Philol., VII (1883), 236 ff., reprinted in the Bibliotheca Romanica,
Nos. 94, 95, contains no prose. I have used L. Gaiter, Il Tesoro di Brunetto Latini volgarizzato
da Bono Giamboni raffrontato col testo autentico francese edito da P. Chabaille, emendato con mss.
ed illustrato (Bologna, 1878), Vol. I, in the Introduction whereof certain extracts of prose and
verse from the Tesoretto are found.
2 L. Gaiter, op. cit., I, 173 ff.
* Ed. Carlo Baudi di Vesme (Bologna, 1875).
The Literary Background of the Chantefable 167
IV. Ritorno alla materia,
E dico, che non é si da taciere;
Che altri non parli mai,
Si c’ altri non dicesse: “Ella non parla
Perch’ ella é muta,”
Ma dico, da taciere é e da parlare,
Come lo luogo e lo tenpo richiede.!
Perhaps the most graceful and artistic use of the prostmetrum in
modern times has been made by Dante (1265-1321) in the Vita
Nuova (ca. 1295). Dante’s verse is usually but a repetition of what
has already been told in prose,? or rather, the prose is only an am-
plified account of what has been said in rhyme. This is especially
true in the Convito (ca. 1808) wherein, even more than in the Vita
Nuova, prose is the medium of literary criticism of a given verse-
text. In some instances in the Vita Nuova,? however, the verse con-
tinues the narrative and forms an integral part thereof:
XX. Appresso che questa canzone fue alquanto divolgata tra le genti,
con cid fosse cosa che alcuno amico l’udisse, volontade lo mosse a pregare me
che io li dovesse dire che é Amore, avendo forse per |’udite parole speranza
di me oltre che degna. Onde io, pensando che appresso di cotale trattato
bello era trattare alquanto d’Amore, e pensando che I’amico era da servire,
propuosi di dire parole ne le quali io trattassi d’Amore; e allora dissi questo
sonetto, lo qual comincia: Amore e ’l cor genitil.
Amore e ’| cor gentil sono una cosa,
si come il saggio in suo dittare pone,
e cosi esser |’un sanza |’altro osa
com’ alma razional sanza ragione.
Falli natura quand’ é amorosa,
Amor per sire e ’] cor per sua magione,
dentro la qual dormendo si riposa
tal volta poca e tal lunga stagione.
Bieltate appare in saggia donna pui,
che piace a gli occhi si, che dentro al core
1 Op. cit., p. 28. See also Parte nona, pp. 273, 279.
2 Cf. Liber de Rectoribus of Sedulius, supra, p. 165.
* Text quoted from Le Opere di Dante, edited by the Societ& Dantesca Italiana (Florence:
R. Bemporad e Figlio, 1921), pp. 24, 25.
168 The Interary Background of the Chantefable
nasce un disio de la cosa piacente;
e tanto dura talora in costui,
che fa svegliar lo spirito d’Amore.
E simil face in donna omo valente.
Then follows the explanation.
XXI. Poscia che trattai d’Amore ne la soprascritta rima, vennemi vol-
ontade di volere dire anche, in loda di questa gentilissima, parole, per le
quali io mostrasse come per lei si sveglia questo Amore, e come non sola-
mente si sveglia la ove dorme, ma la ove non é in potenzia, ella, mirabil-
mente, operando lo fa venire. E allora dissi questo sonetto, lo quale comin-
cia: Ne li occhi porta.
The literary form of prosimetrum did not come to an end with
Dante. Jacopo Sannazzaro (1458-1530) employed it in his Arcadia
(1481-86). Here the poems are usually inserts in the form of musical
compositions by some one of the assembled company, but there are
also some verses used in the way illustrated above.' Sir Philip
Sidney (1554-86), whose Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia (1580-81)
appeared in 1590, followed Sannazzaro in this as in other things.*
Shakspere often varies his blank verse with prose and lyrics. At the
close of the sixteenth century Leroy, Gillot, Chrestien, Rapin, Pithou,
Passerat and Durant united in writing, in prose and verse, La Satire
Ménippée (1593), which, by its title, sends our thoughts back to
Varro and Menippus.? Finally we may note that certain Italian
novelliert, following the example of Boccaccio (1313-78) in the
Decameron, adorned their prose with canzoni. Such were Giovanni
Fiorentino (ca. 1350-1406), Giovan Francesco Straparola (ca. 1480?-
1565?) and Giraldi Cinzio (ca. 1504-73).‘
We have now reached — and passed —the period in which
Aucassin et Nicolette was composed, and I have endeavored to show
1 Cf. the end of Prosa VIII and Egloga VIII.
2 Cf. ed. E. A. Baker (reprinted by Routledge and Sons: London, 1921), p. 144.
* J. C. F. Bahr, Geschichte der Rémischen Literatur (Karlsruhe: 1868), I, 557, § 141, note
19, refers to the Satira Menitppea of the Dutch classical] scholar Justus Lipsius in J. Lipests
Opera (Antwerp, 1637 ff.), I, 417 ff. I have not been able to consult this work.
4 The works of these authors may be found in Raccolta di Novellieri Italiani (Firenze:
Tipografia Borghi e Compagni, 1833-34), II, 2225 ff., 1287 ff., 1753 ff., except the Pracevols
Nott: of Straparola, edited by G. Rua, Bologna, 1898-1908.
The Interary Background of the Chantefable 169
by a sufficient, though not complete, series of examples that the
chantefable does not stand alone, but forms a member of an extensive
body of literature whose tradition was constant in western Europe
down to the close of the Middle Ages. With such a persistent an-
terior and contemporary use of the prosimetrum style, the astonishing
thing is, not that the author of Aucassin should have used it, but
that it had no further fortune in France, as it had in Italy.’
1 Rutebeuf’s Dit de [ Herberie, consisting of a piece of prose and a piece of poetry, is not
a chantefable. The Satire Ménippée ignores native mediaeval tradition and is inspired by
classical antiquity. Examples of narrative verse interspersed with lyrics are afforded by
Cleomadds, Meliacin and Guillaume de Dole. The Provengal razo contains a prose dedication
to a poem. Further examples of a bastard sort of rhyme-prose may be found by consulting
the Index of Manitius, op. cit. supra, sub voce ‘‘Retmprosa.”
Tas University or Micuican.
SOME ASPECTS OF MEDIAEVAL LATIN STYLE
By MARBURY BLADEN OGLE
HILE engaged upon the translation of Walter Map’s de
Nugis Curralium, I was struck by the fact that he employed—
whether consciously or not I was not prepared to say—two kinds of
style, each distinctly different from the other. At times he writes his
Latin in a style that is direct, clear, and free from excessive ornate-
ness, a style which compares favorably with that of any writer after
the classical period. At other times, however, his sentences are in-
volved, full of far-fetched figures and learned references, and marked
by repetitions, antitheses, alliteration, jingles. Although it is not
possible perhaps to classify with strictness the peculiarities of this
style, there are certain features which stand out more clearly than
others and which are of such a nature that they may be regarded as
typical:
1. Unnatural word order (travectio), and the use of unnecessary
words in order to get rhythm or jingle, what Cicero has so aptly
described as “stuffing in words to fill the chinks.’’! Thus, in Das-
tinctio ii, 1 (p. 104, 3), cum a palacit descendunt palatins negocirs;
il, 2 (p. 106, 9-11), unum tamen et unicum scio quem de similt possum
laudare constancia, st non et Veneris usum neget impotancia; iv, 1
(p. 188, 10-11), nostrum semper orantes refugium, ut eleccionis pure
bonorum Ipse in nobis consecucionem, et fuge malignitatis Ipse facrat
effugium.*
2. Short cola, often of equal length (zsocola) as, for example,
11, 18 (p. 89, 10-12), occumbunt ergo quatuor, sed ipse solus euastt, et
a suis tnuentus ad securitatem se transtulit; ili, 2 (p. 111, 13-15),
regina... quam Cupidints accenderat arcus, quam gravitas extinguit
plumbea; i, 10 (p. 30, 17-18), Petrus 1bi didicit pacem querere pact-
encia; nescio quis hos docuit vim vincere violencia; i, 23 (p. 36, 14-16),
locum extra mundum in corde mundi, semotum ab hominibus hominum
tn medio, seculum scire nolentes, a seculo scirt volentes.®
1 Orator, 231.
? Citations are made with parenthetical reference to page and line in edition of M. R.
James, Walter Map. de Nugis Curtalium (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914).
* Cf. i, 12 (p. 18, 9-11), iv, 18 (p. 187, 9-10).
170
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 171
8. Puns, a play on words, whether in regard to form or meaning
(paronomasia). Here are three examples taken froin one page of the
Epilogue to Drstinctro iv (p. 141, 1-2): quia prorsus ab evs auersam
et longe plus alits aduersam; (p. 141, 6-8), a curza liber sum, unde
relegatus quiete noua percipio quam musere fuerim ibt religatus; '
(p. 141, 24-25) non oportet ab antris earum loqut nec in regulis arcium
artari. Qutdlibet ut libet agimus. Again in i, 12 (p. 17, 29-31), hucus-
modi sunt lusus curve, et tales bi demonum tllusiones; et quicunque
delectatur aliquod videre portentum, ingredratur curias potentum; iii, $
(p. 130, 10-11), from the conclusion of the story of Parius and
Lausus, instat enim et adheret litere, nec habet aliquam inuisam nisi
peruisam, aut neclectam nist perlectam.*
4. Parallelism of sound, both in the interior and at the ends of |
words (paromeon). This is secured by various devices among which
the following are the most usual: (a) alliteration, as in the Epilogue
to Distinctio iv (p. 141, 23), et mihi nunc primo placere potest puteal;
or, in the Conclusio to his “Epvstola ad Ruffinum,” iv, 5 (p. 159, 12),
suavi serenitate salebras apperi salbures asperum planans iter; i, 15
(p. 23, 20-21), santus est ut trracionalium racione regamur.* (b) By
the use of different parts of speech formed on the same stem, as: i, 15
(p. 24, 5-6), nos tamen eorum excedimus excessus and (p. 24, 7-8),
nec sit aliquid oculis ostensum in quo non ostendat Dominus aliquam
instruccionis formam; i, 12 (p. 18, 7-8), tu caueas, st me ruditus
ruditas ridiculum reddiderit. ‘ (c) By the use of the same stem, com-
pounded with different prefixes or suffixes, or of simple and coin-
pound words formed on the same stem, as in i, 2 (p. 105, 14-15), tum
manibus tum oculis cupidis non cupitrs, susceptis et non acceptis;
Sceva’s love-making, iv, 16 (p. 199, 12-13), cartssima mi electa et
super animam meam dilecta, potes si placeret menti placare mentem;
ii, 1 (p. 64, 6-7), differantur tamen, st non auferantur; i, 10 (p. 11,
8-9), cogebant potentes et impotentes, volentes et nolentes.* (d) By the
1 The same play on words occurs in i, 10 (p. 18, 8).
2 Cf. also, v, 1 (p. 204, 29), iv, 1 (p. 139, 26).
8 Cf. i, 12 (p. 19, 2); iv, Prologus (p. 188, 11); ibid. (p. 140, 17-18); iii, 2 (p. 105, 30).
4 Cf. ili, 2 (p. 115, 37); ii, 1 (p. 104, 1, quoted above).
5 Cf. i, 12 (p. 17, 29, cited above); i, 12 (p. 18, 8); iv, 6 (p. 171, 26); v, 1 (p. 208, 3); iv, 18
(p. 186, $1); iv, 14 (p. 188, 5).
172 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
use of the same word in different cases or tenses (polyptonon) as
in 1, 23 and iv, 16, both cited above. (e) By the repetition of the
same case- or tense-endings (home@oteleuton), especially at the end
of short cola. Many of the examples I have quoted illustrate
Map’s fondness for this device; compare also iv, 18 (p. 188, 4-6),
really the conclusion of his sermon on the court: cupto eciam ut pos-
tera recordetur huius malicie milicia, sciantque tollerabilia perpeti, a
nobis intoleranciam passis edoctt; v, 1 (p. 208, 9-10), quod reprehen-
dere scimus, et scribere tgnoramus; carpere appetimus, et carpt mere-
mur; iv, 6 (p. 171, 30-31), non patris verbera, non matris ubera, vitrict
gladium, noverce venenum, baiulat; v. 1 (p. 204, 22-23), hanc tubt vitan-
dam proponimus pro veneficis, tllam eligendam pro beneficits.
If Map is fond of paronomasia and paromeon, two of the so-
called Gorgianic figures, he is no less fond of the third, antithesis,
as the passages already quoted make clear; but compare especially
v, 1 (p. 203, 7-8), sacent tamen egregia modernorum nobilium, et
attolluntur fimbrie vetustatrs abiecte.
These devices which I have described are the most important, it
will be noted, among the schemata verborum, the ornaments of one’s
speech or manner of utterance, in contrast to the trop, which are
devices for adorning one’s idea or for illustrating it.! These have so
distinctive a character that they may, with all justice I think, be
taken as criteria of style. When one begins to seek out their history,
he is at once struck by the fact that they are not peculiar to one age
or clime, but that they occur everywhere and have had a long tradi-
tion. We find them in Greek literature, especially in that written
during and after the Alexandrian period, and they are the hall-
marks — and this, I think, is the important thing — of the produc-
tions of the Greek schools of rhetoric which came into being after
the passing of the great days of the fifth century. These schools had
as their primary aim the teaching of practical eloquence, but they
also claimed to train youth for the affairs of life and to embrace
all spheres. When the Romans became lords of things in the second
century B.C., they needed practical rhetoric, and Greek teachers
1 Cf. Lyly’s Euphues (ed. Croll and Clemons, London: Routledge, 1916), Introduction,
pp. i ff.
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 173
brought their schools to Rome. Hence it was that both oratory and
public utterance of every sort came under the influence of rhetoric
both in theory and practice. The results of this training may be
seen in the remains of the oratory of the Gracchan period and in the
earliest speeches of Cicero, in the pro Quinctto for example, in which
one can find parallels to all the artifices I have cited from Walter
Map. Cicero, however, became a deep student of philosophy and,
with this as his guide, he was able to fashion a new idcal of the orator
as one in whom rhetoric should be subordinate to philosophy. But
this ideal did not long survive him, and hardly more than a genera-
tion had passed away before rhetoric had become all powerful over
literature and over life. It came to be regarded as the foundation of
all education for the statesman no less than for the man of letters.
Its methods and its manner had become fixed by tradition and the
continuity was likewise preserved by the practice of delivering epi-
deictic speeches in honor of men and gods and of fictitious court
speeches, in which the important thing was not the content but the
manner of utterance. There were, of course, periods of reaction
against the fashion and it was during one of these that the term
‘Asiatic’ was adopted as a term of reproach for the exponents of
the gawdy style, a style which Quintilian, himself a follower of
Cicero, termed corrupta eloquentia and of which he says “aut puerili-
bus sententiolis lascivit aut immodico tumore turgescit,” “it runs riot
with its childish tags or is swollen with unmeasured fulsomeness.” !
In these two phrases Quintilian aptly describes the two features
of the Latin style of his time which Cicero had found too prevalent
in the oratory of the Greeks of Asia Minor * and in the literary pro-
ductions which had emanated from their schools; but Quintilian was
no more successful than Cicero had been in his efforts to establish
higher standards of oratory. Everywhere throughout the Roman
Empire schools, in which hardly a trace of sound philosophic train-
ing remained, were helping to fix the type of style which had been
1 Quint., xii, 10, 73.
2 Cicero, however, never condemns these Asiatic orators unqualifiedly; he makes it per-
fectly clear that there were orators outside of Attica who wrote classic Greek as well as orators
from other parts of the Greek world who were not guilty of redundancy of style; cf. U. v.
Wilamowitz-Mullendorff, Hermes, XXXV (1900), 1 ff.
174 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
developed in the Greek schools three hundred years before. Hence,
the characteristic features of the style of later Latin literature,
whether written in Italy or Africa, Gaul or Spain, whether pagan or
Christian, are much the same. What differences there are are differ-
ences in degree, not in kind. And these features are, for the most
part, such as I have described above. It is wrong, therefore, to give
the style which is marked by these features a geographical appella-
tion, to call it Asiatic or African or, with certain critics of the Latin
of Anglo-Saxon writers, Celtic or Hisperic.! Such a practice over-
looks, also, the very important fact, to which I shall return presently,
namely, that a writer such as Apuleius ? may in one work employ a
style that is marked by all the mannerisms termed Asiatic or African
or Celtic, and, in another, a style that is practically free from these
mannerisms.
Since sufficient emphasis has not been laid, it seems to me, upon
the influence of the traditions of the schools as a possible explana-
tion for certain peculiarities of Mediaeval Latin style — Norden
certainly, in his zeal for his theory of imitation, fails to do so — it
may not be out of place to glance for a moment at the nature of the
instruction in the schools and to point out the universality of one
type of education.*
It must be noted, first of all, that the chief place in education, in
the upper schools, at least, was held by grammar and by rhetoric.
The term grammar had, of course, a much wider meaning than we
associate with the word. To Varro, for example, (quoted by Marius
Victorinus, i, 1),‘ ars grammatica, quae a nobis literatura dicitur, was
1 Cf. especially, W. H. Stevenson, Asser’s Life of King Alfred (Oxford, 1904), Introduc-
tion, p. xci.
2 Cf. Eduard Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig, Teubner, 1898), pp. 608 ff. The
same is true of Prudentius, as Professor Rand has noticed, “‘Prudentius and Christian Hu-
manism,” Transactions of the American Philological Association, LI (1920), 75. This matter
is connected, as he has suggested to me, with what he there describes as ‘Christian simplicity,
real and assumed,” a subject to which I hope to return at a future time. It is referred to by
M. Roger, L’Enseignement des lettres classiques d’Ausone @ Alcuin (Paris: Picard, 1905),
104; cf. Norden, op. ci., p. 595, n. 1, p. 754, n. 1.
3 This is the opinion, also, I am glad to note, of Professor Croll, expressed in the Intro-
duction to his edition of the Euphues, cit. supra. The fact that my conclusions, which were
reached before I read his excellent essay, coincided with those of such an eens justifies
my boldness in attempting to discuss the matter.
¢ Cf. Keil-Hertz, Grammatici Latini, VI, 4.
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 175
scientia eorum quae a poetts historicis oratoribusque dicuntur ex parte
mavore; to Quintilian (i, 4), it was recte loquendz scientia et poelarum
enarratio, and this was the meaning which the word continued to
have throughout the Middle Ages. This is clear from the definitions
of it given in the three most important text-books, Cassiodorus,
Institutto de arte grammatica:! grammatica est peritia pulchre lo-
quendz ex poetis illustribus oratoribusque collecta; Isidore, Etymolo-
giae, i, 5 (ed. Lindsay, Ozford Classical Texts): scientia recte loquendi
et origo et fundamentum liberalium lterarum; Rabanus Maurus, de
Clericorum Institutvone, iii, 18(Migne, CVII, 395) : scventia enterpretandi
poetas aique historicos et recte scribendi loquendique rato. The word
takes on even wider content in the Glosa Notabilis to the Doctrinale
of Alexander de Villa Dei: ? grammatica est ostiarra omnium aliarum
scientium, linguae balbuiientis expurgatriz aptrssima, logicae ministra,
rhetoricae, theologicae interpres, medicinae refrigertum et totius quad-
rw laudabile fundamentum. Even though Quintilian, in his discus-
sion of the ludus grammaticus, emphasizes the need of the study of
geometry, music, and astronomy, hedoesso only because these subjects
were considered necessary for the appreciation of poetry, and poetry,
in fact, was the chief matter of study in these schools; hence, Tacitus
(Dialogus de Oratoribus, 20) remarks, exigitur 1am ab oratore etiam
poeticus decor. From the very first the student had to paraphrase
poetry, the plots of epics, of dramas, sometimes condensing, some-
times elaborating; poetry furnished him, in large part, with the sub-
jects for his prosopopeiae or ethoparae, speeches which were put into
the mouth of mythical or historical persons suitable to the particular
individual in the particular circumstances, as for example, the speech
of the love-lorn Achilles on the death of Penthesilea (Libanius,
Orationes, ed. Reiske, IV, 1026), or that of a greedy slave who had
found a golden sword (dem, p. 1043). From poetry, too, were taken
oftentimes the questions set up for debate, especially from the
1 Cf. Keil-Hertz, Grammatici Latini, VII, 214.
2 Cf. D. Reichling, ‘Das Doctrinale des Alexander de Villa Dei,’”” Monumenta Germantae
Paedagogica, XII (1893), Einleitung, p. iii. For a discussion of the history of the word gram-
maticus, cf. J. E. Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship (3d ed.), I, 6 ff.
3 For similar themes, cf. Theon, Progymnasmata (ed. L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, II,
116 ff.); Quintilian, iii, 8, 58; Libanius, op. cit.
176 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
comedy and the mime which dealt with imaginary and romantic
themes. Or else, merely imaginary characters or abstractions were
represented in conversation or debate, or speeches were delivered in
commendation of the good, in dispraise of the evil, and descriptions
(the so-called édpdéces) written of all sorts of persons and things.
In short, the sense of reality, the sense of proportion, was lost and the
result was, as Quintilian puts it, “a transgression of the mean and
& perversion of the natural.” ?
Since, therefore, poetry was to such a large extent the subject of
study, especially in the ludi grammatici,? the language not only of
the school exercises but of prose generally tended more and more to
become poetic; ordinary language was tabooed, and its place was
taken by a prose which was adorned with all the artifices of poetry.
And not only was the style of prose made poetic, but the matter,
which in the best period had belonged to the province of poetry,
found treatment in prose, especially descriptions — descriptions of
objects of nature, objects of art, the seasons, places, persons, ani-
mals, and birds, and panegyrics of great men and praises of their
deeds.’
Although this sort of education had been shaped primarily to
train men to be orators, in course of time the claim was made for it
that it furnished the only method to train men for any of the higher
walks of life. Above all else it was thought to have a moral value,
and through the agency of rhetoric, it was said, the cardinal virtues,
prudence, temperance, justice, courage were produced. What gym-
nastics do for the body, that, said Aristides, the art of rhetoric does
for the soul.‘ This education was, moreover, the only type of educa-
tion which the whole world knew, for wherever Roman arms went,
there went the grammatici and the rhetores. By the side of the private
schools there were, after the time of Vespasian, schools which were
established by the State or supported by the separate provinces or
1 Quint., viii, 8, 58.
* Cf. M. Roger, L’Enseignement des lettres classiques d’Ausone & Alcuin (Paris, 1905),
pp. 8 ff.; T. Haarhoof, Schools of Gaul (Oxford: University Press, 1920), pp. 56 ff., 68 ff.
3 Cf. E. Rohde, Der Griechische Roman (3d ed., Leipzig: Breitkopf u. Hartel, 1914), pp.
$57 ff.; also A. S. Pease, ““Things without Honor,” Classical Philology, XXI (1926), 27 ff.
4 Ora tones, xlv, ed. Dindorf, II, 72.
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 177
cities with chairs of rhetoric occupied by professors paid from the
public treasury. Even after the Roman Empire was divided under
Diocletian, when the tendency was for the East to become more
oriental and different from the West, this difference was not re-
flected, apparently, in the methods of education. When Theodosius
II founded the University of Constantinople in 426 a.p., the center
of its instruction was grammar and rhetoric. Of its thirty-one pro-
fessors, twenty were grammarians, eight were rhetoricians, two were
teachers of law, one of philosophy. Similarly, in the University of
Bordeaux (Burdigala), according to Ausonius,' who was a pupil there
and master for thirty years, all the teachers were Latin or Greek
grammarians or rhetoricians. Nor did the fact that a barbarian,
Theodoric, became master of the western world in the beginning of
the sixth century, result in the casting out from the schools which
survived poetry, grammar, and rhetoric. We have, for example,
from the pen of Ennodius, Bishop of Pavia, a short treatise entitled
Paraenesis Didascalica, written in 511, in which he extols poetry,
modesty, chastity, faith, grammar, and rhetoric — rhetoric, the
mother, he calls it, of poetry, of dialectic, of arithinetic, which makes
the innocent guilty, the guilty innocent, and gives worldly power.?
Moreover, in his Dictiones he collected examples of school contro-
verstae and suasortae which are similar to those in use in pagan
schools four hundred years before. About the same time, in Africa,
another Christian bishop, Fulgentius, was employing all the flowers
of a decadent rhetoric to adorn his allegorical explanation of Vergil’s
Aeneid, while in Constantinople Priscian was writing his great gram-
mar that was to serve as a textbook for all the world. As evidence
of the unbroken tradition between the old and the new, so far at
least as the methods of instruction went, may be cited the treatise
of Priscian, dedicated to Symmachus, entitled de Praeerercitamentzs
Rhetoricis quae Graect xpoyupvacpara vocant.*
1 Professorum Commemoratio; cf. Roger, op. ctt., pp. 5 ff.
2 Opuscula 6 (ed. F. Vogel, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquisstmi, VII,
$14). Similar claims are made for poetry by Fulgentius, Super Thebeiden, ed. Helm (Teubner,
1898), pp. 180, 181.
3 Cf. W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der rimischen Literatur (6th ed., Leipzig: Teubner, 1918),
§ 481, 4. Compare also the reference to the declamationes in Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistulae, ix,
178 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
Nor did the Christianization of the world alter greatly the time-
honored methods of instruction, however much it may have altered
the matter. Not only had many of the early Fathers—and these the
most influential — been educated in Greek or Latin rhetorical schools,
but many of them had themselves been teachers of rhetoric. And
although in theory they might have accepted Tertullian’s view
that, so long as they believed, nothing else mattered, or agreed with
Gregory the Great that it was an unworthy thing to subject the word
of God to the rules of Donatus,’ their practice shows that they were
well versed in the use of the tools they affected to despise. Some,
however, were bold enough to declare, on the one hand, that the
Holy Scriptures conformed to the highest laws of rhetorical art and,
on the other, that only by the training obtained from the traditional
methods of grammar and rhetoric, could the Christian teacher and
preacher gain the eloquence necessary to overcome the claims of the
heathen.? In this connection it is important to note that St Augus-
tine, in his de Modis Locutionum, now lost, declared that the diversa
schemata saecularium litterarum and the schemata grammaticorum
atque rhetorum were all contained in the Scriptures, and again, in his
de Doctrina Christiana, iii, 29 (cf. ii, 40), that through a knowledge
of the mod: locutionum, which the Greek grammarians called tropi,
one is aided to a better understanding of God’s word (cf. iv,3). Hence
it was that Cassiodorus, in his famous Institutiones, 1, 11, in which
he quotes from the de Modis of Augustine, put by the side of the
sacred writings the seven traditional subjects of the old grammatical
and rhetorical schools, which had come to him perhaps from Marti-
anus Capella — grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic,
astronomy, music — and which Alcuin later described as the seven
pillars on which rests wisdom.? The fact that Cassiodorus justifies
the study of the artes solely as a means to the proper understanding
7 (ed. Litjohann, Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Ant., VIII), and in Claudius Mamertus, Epistula
ad Sapaudum, p. 205 (ed. Engelbrecht, Corp. Script. Ecclesiast. Lat., XI). These praeezercit-
amenta are mentioned by John of Salisbury, Metalogicus, i, 24 (ed. Giles), as holding a promi-
nent place in the school of Bernard of Chartres.
1 Cf. Moralium, Praefatio, i (Migne, LXXV, 516).
2 Cf. E. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, pp. 529 ff.; Roger, op. ctt., pp. 182 ff.
* Migne, CI, 858. On the Artes, cf. P. Abelson, The Seven Liberal Arts (Columbia Univ.
Teachers College Contributions to Education, XI, 1906).
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 179
of the Scriptures and not as an end in themselves implies no break,
(as Roger, op. ctl. supra, p. 178, notes), with the principles of the pagan
schools, and but little, we may be sure, with the methods of instruc-
tion. Hence Isidore of Seville, however much he might condemn the
poetry of the pagans, used it freely in his historical, grammatical, and
theological writings, and could go so far as to exclaim, “rather gram-
mar than heresy.”’! The vitality of the tradition is shown by the
fact that in the school of Bernard of Chartres, as described by John
of Salisbury,? grammar and poetry were the foundations.
Even if, in the strictly monastic schools, the content of study was
furnished by the Scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers,
it is evident, from what we know of the instruction in these schools,
that the result was not a ban upon grammar and rhetoric, but rather
a minimizing of their more substantial features. In order fully to
comprehend the meaning of the Scriptures, these had to be inter-
preted from four points of view, the historical, allegorical, moral,
anagogical,? and for the last three the study of the trop: and the
schemata verborum were deemed necessary. We have seen the place
which St Augustine and Cassiodorus assigned to it, and similar evi-
dence is afforded by a Capitulary of Charlemagne to Baugulf, Abbot
of Fulda.‘ These tropz and schemata had a place in the Institutiones
of Quintilian, in Martianus Capella, and in the great grammar of
Donatus where the third book was devoted to them. This book came
later to be ascribed to Priscian and the authority of his name en-
hanced its popularity; hence, every grammar published thereafter
contained a section in which the figures are defined and illustrated.
Bede, chiefly in dependence upon St Augustine and Cassiodorus, wrote
a treatise, de Schematibus et Tropis,® in which he holds fast to the
ancient forms even though he draws his illustrative examples from
1 Sententiae, iii, 18 (Migne, LXX XIII, 698).
2 Metalogicus, i, 24 (ed. Giles).
3 The sensus historicus, allegoricus, tropologicus, anagogicus; cf. Cassianus, de Spiritali
Scientia, iv, 8 (Migne, XLIX, 962); Aldhelm, de Virginitate, iv (ed. Ehwald, Mon. Germ. Hist.,
Auc. Ant., Pars I, 232); John of Salisbury, Poltcraticus, vii, 12 (ed. C. C. Webb, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1909, II, 666 a). Cf. the rules for preaching contained in H. Caplan, A Late
Medieval Tractate on Preaching (New York: The Century Co., 1926), pp. 79 ff.
4 Cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Leges, I, 1, 79, of the year 789. On the study of the figures,
cf. Roger, op. cit., supra, pp. 384 ff.
5 Cf. Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, p. 607; cf. idem, p. xv.
180 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
Holy Writ, since there, he remarks, they had found a place long
before Greek grammarians had invented their names. Donatus fur-
nished him his seventeen schemata verborum and his thirteen trom,
and to the same authority, or to Cassiodorus, he owes his definitions
and illustrations. We find practically the same figures and the same
definitions in all the treatises used both in the secular and monkish
schools, in the grammar of Alcuin, for example, including finally the
famous Doctrinale' of Alexander of Villa Dei, where they are dis-
cussed in verse. Among them, of course, are the schemata which I
have selected as characteristic of the ornate style of Walter Map:
paronomasia, paromeon, homeoteleuton, antithesis, polyptoton, zsocola.
The universal study of grammar, which concerned itself, it must
be remembered, chiefly with poetry, with its emphasis upon the
trop and schemata, furnished, therefore, the chief, often, no doubt,
the only source of stylistic adornment. What it meant to such a man
as Aldhelm, for example, we learn from the last few chapters of his
de Virginitate (lix and following).? Here he congratulates himself
that the leaky bark of his frail ability has about made port, having
escaped the crushing cliffs of labdasism and the whirlpools of metas-
ism (the terms come from Isidore, Etymologiae, i, 32, 6) which often
drive dreadfully to shipwreck the careless who are caught “without
the guiding helm of grammar,” sine grammaticorum gubernaculo.
That grammar, moreover, taught one to write not only a correct
style but also an ornate one, is clear from the next sentence in which
Aldhelm declares, in clauses that are marked by all the schemata,
that his effort was to do honor to the glory of virgin maidenhood
“‘by means of rhetorical reportings,” rhetoricis relatibus.
Here arises a question, a complete and satisfactory answer to
which I have not seen given and which I certainly am not equipped
to give. What principles determined the limits within which the use
of the tropi and schemata was deemed permissible, if not necessary?
1 Ed. D. Reichling, Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica, XII (1898). Note the emphasis
which Peter of Blois laid upon them, Epistola, 101, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (ed.
H. Denifle et A. Chatelain, Paris, 1889), I, 27 ff., cited by Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa,
p. 719.
2 Ed. Ehwald, Mon. Germ. Hist., Auc. Ant., XV, Pars I, p. 820. The passage is strongly
reminiscent of the equally rhetorical outburst of St Jerome, Epistula xiv, 10 (I, 36, ed., Vallarsi).
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 181
That there were such limits—in the case of the majority of mediaeval
writers, at least —is shown, I think, by a study of the parts of Map’s
book in which his use of the trop and schemata is most free. These
are the Prologues and Epilogues, not only to the five Distinctiones,
but to the different sections or narratives within a Distinctio. These
Prologues and Epilogues are often miniature sermons or admoni-
tions, in which Map addresses his readers in the first person. Here
belong the gawdy paragraph in i, 12, which concludes his account of
the follies of the court; the conclusion of chapter 15 of the same Dis-
tinctio, a short serinon on the folly of man as compared with beasts;
the Prologue to Distinctio iii, and especially that to Dvzstinctio iv,
together with its Epilogue in chapter 2, which serves to introduce to
his friend his Dissuasio, ne uxorem ducat; that famous Dissuasio itself
and its conclusion in iv, 4; the Prologue to Distinctvo v; the introduc-
tion to the story of Sadius and Galo in Distincivo i; the conclusion to
the story of Parius and Lausus in iii, 3. Then there are passages in
which the tone of the narrative is raised to a high emotional level,
real or assumed, as in parts of the story of Sadius and Galo and in the
story of Sceva and Olla (iv, 16), in which Sceva’s love-making is de-
scribed. There are, on the other hand, many pages in which the
figures either do not occur at all or occur rarely. Here may be put
practically the entire second Drstinctio, which is made up of a series
of short narratives or anecdotes; most of the third Distinctzo which
- contains the prose drama of Sadius and Galo, the contrasting story
of Parius and Lausus, the stories of Raso and his wife, and of Rollo
and his wife; most of the narratives which conclude the fourth Dis-
tanctto and practically all the historical narrative in the fifth Dis-
tinctto. If we may take Map’s own words seriously, it would seem
that he himself was conscious of the difference in his style in the
different portions of his work, for he says, in the short Epilogue to
the collection of anecdotes in Distinctzo ui (ed. cit., p. 103, 1-3), “‘ siluam
uobis ef materiam, non dico fabularum, sed faminum appono: cultur
elentm sermonum non intendo, nec st studeam consequar...” “A
forest and timber —I do not say fictitious but factitious — I set
before you; elegance in the telling is not my aim, nor, if I should
strive after it, could I attain it.”
182 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
If one may generalize from this evidence, it seems that in the
passages in which Map takes the tone of praise or blame, of exhorta-
tion, warning, or appeal, passages which are most closely allied to
the sermon, and in those in which he is dealing with the traditional
conceits of erotic literature, he makes unstinted use of the trop: and
schemata, but in plain narrative, whether in the form of anecdote or
history, he for the most part avoids them.
Such a distinction in the use of the figures is not, however, pe-
culiar to Map, but is also found in the works of his contemporaries.
When one reads, for example, the introductory chapter to the third
book of the de Rebus a se Gestis } of Giraldus Cambrensis, or his de-
scription of Map’s wit in the Speculum Ecclesvae,? “sales saporifero
sapientiae sale,’ or the proem of his first lecture in Paris, which he
quotes in de Rebus a se Gestis,? one is reminded at once of the
phrase of Jerome’s‘ which Bede quotes (de Schematts et Tropis, Migne,
XC, 178), to describe homceoteleuton — concinnae rhetorum declama-
tiones. Not all of Giraldus’s Latin, however, is of this nature, for
one may read many pages of the Expugnatio Hibernica, the [tinerar-
tum Kambriae, and the Topographia Hibernica, and not be struck in
the face by the schemata. So the de Rebus a se Gestrs is for the most
part written in a plain and simple style, in what Giraldus himself
describes in the ss aa as scolastico stilo simplict tamen et non
exquisito.®
The histories of William of Malmesbury,® also, are free for the
most part from excessive adornment and he does not hesitate to
1 Ed. J. G. Brewer, London, 1861 (Rolls Series, XXI, i, 89): Considerans autem Giraldus
vanam ex toto curiae sequelam, vanas omnino promissones, tanas et indignas nec tuxta merita
promotiones: quod olim mente conceperat ac paulatim tam tnceperat, a curiae strepitu tanquam
tempestuoso pelago penitus se retraxit, et ad scholas ac studium tanquam portum quietum eé
tranquillum salubriort consilio se transferre curavit.
2 iii, 14 (Rolls Series, X XI, iv, 219).
3 ii, 2 (Rolls Series, X XI, i, 46). The opening sentences read: Proposueram prius audtre
quam audiri, prius discere quam dicere, prius dulntare quam disputare. Eruditis enim auribus
summaceque eloquentiae riris et minus medullata sententiis oratio et teiuna verborum macies quae
propinalitur.
4 In Iesaiam viii, praef. (ed. Vallarsi, 1V, 329): qui flumen eloquentiae et concinnas decla-
mationes desiderant, legant Tullium, Quintilianum, Gallionem, Gabinianum; cf. Norden, Die
Antike Kunstprosa, p. 634. § Rolls Series, X XI, i, 19.
6 Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series, XC, i-ii; Gesta sc ig ed. N.
Hamilton, Rolls Series, LII.
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 183
criticize the style of his sources as erarata barbarice; that of Ethel-
werd’s version of the Chronicles;! that of the old charters, the words
of which are dark and many taken from the Greek (Gesta Ponttficum,
ch. 196, ed. Hamilton, p.344); that of the unknown writer’s panegyric
of Ethelstan (Gesta Regum, ii, 132, Stubbs, i, 144), a style which
Cicero, king of Roman eloquence, would have called “suffultum.”
And yet William could, when he so desired, write in this same sort
of style. Compare the highly ornate speech which he puts into
the mouth of Pope Urban before the Council of Clermont (Gesta
Regum, iv, 347, Stubbs, ii, 393 ff.), which William quotes, pauca...
encastigato sermone depromens, plura manumittens.? Especially note-
worthy is the forced metaphor (éranslatvo) which he takes from
Lucan, Pharsalza, viii, 384 (Stubbs, ii, 395), and the ornate conclu-
sion of the speech (Stubbs, 11, 398). Such, too, is the Latin of many
of his descriptions (ecphrases), that of Constantinople, for example,
in Gesta Regum, iv, 355 (Stubbs, 11, 411 ff.), and of his Prologues and
Epilogues. Even Map gives us nothing better than the Prologue to
the third book of the Gesta Regum (Stubbs, ii, 283): Verum in his
protrahendis non multum temports expendam impendium, quae nulli
emolumentum animo legentt fastidium scribentt parrant odium. Satis
superque sufficiunt qui genuino molart facta bonorum lacerent. Here
we have paronomasia, paromeon, parison, homeoteleuton, alliteratio.*
Whether a study of Mediaeval Latin generally would support the
conclusion to which the practice of these writers in the employment
of figures points, namely, that it was the kind of discourse and of
divisions within a discourse which was the determining factor in
their use, I am not prepared to say without further investigation. It
is certainly true, however, that one can read many, many pages in
the histories, such as the Bellz Sacri Historta of William of Tyre, the
Res Gestae Saxonicorum of Widukind of Corvey, the Historia Fran-
corum of Aimoin of Fleury, the Historia Langobardorum of Paulus
Diaconus, many in the familiar letters of Alcuin and Lupus and
Gerbert, many in the stories told by Ekkehard IV in his Casus
1 For example, cf. Gesta Regum, i, Prol. (Stubbs, I, 3).
* Gesta Regum, iv, $48 (Stubbs, II, 398).
3 Cf. the Epilogue to v, 446 (Stubbs, ii, 518 ff.), really a panegyric on Robert of
Gloucester.
y
184 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
Sancti Galli or by Joannes de Alta Silva and Petrus Alfonsi, without
finding offensive examples of trop: and schemata, however strange
the vocabulary and the grammar may be. Even the Latin of Asser’s
Itfe of Alfred, which Stevenson ' considers representative of ‘Hes-
peric Latinity’ is not, in a majority of his pages, so highly rhetorical
and so ostentatious as Stevenson would lead one to suppose. It is
noteworthy that “the long-drawn out metaphors,” “the traces of
alliteration,”’ and, I may add, the schemata, do not appear in excess
save in the chapters which are of the nature of panegyrics or which,
as Stevenson says, “have the air of sermons.” ?
The same limitation in the use of the fropi and schemata is ap-
parent, also, in the works of Bede. The Historia Ecclesiastica is
written, as William of Malmesbury says,’ “plano et suauz sermone’’;
but Bede did not always write thus. His sermon on the Annuncia-
tion might well serve to illustrate his treatise de Schematibus et Tropns,
and his prose life of St Cuthbert (Migne, XCIV, 735) to illustrate
the ubertas Gallici nitorque sermonis of which Jerome writes to
Rusticus.‘ The same is true, indeed, of practically all sermons
and other admonitory and hortatory writings, of the lives of the
saints, of the panegyrics of the good and great, the condemnations
of the bad, of the speeches which serve to adorn many a dry page of
the chronicles, and of prologues and epilogues to writings of all
kinds. Aldhelm, in his letter to Leutherius,® aptly marks the differ-
ence: haec . . . cursim pedetemptim perstrinzimus, non garrulo verbost-
tatis strepitu rllecta — the very terms he applies to his own style in de
Virginztate, xix.°
Such a distinction in the sort of style appropriate to different
types of writing and to the different parts of a discourse was, of
course, 8 commonplace of ancient rhetoric. When we read what
Cicero and Quintilian, for example, have to say in regard to this
1 Cf. ed. cit. supra, Oxford, 1904, Introduction, p. xcii.
2 Such as chs. 76, 88, 89-90, 91, 95-96. And it is from these chapters that practically all
the examples of excessive ornamentation cited by Stevenson, p. xc, come.
3 Gest. Reg. Angl., i, Prol. (Stubbs, I, 1); ef. i, 59.
4 Epistula cxxv, 1.
8 Ed. Ehwald, Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Antiqutss., Pars II, 476.
6 Ed. Ehwald, thid., Pars I, 249.
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 185
theory, we see at once that the kinds of writing and the parts of a
discourse in which an ornate style is recognized as fitting, even neces-
sary, are exactly those in which the trom and schemata appear in
the greatest profusion. That Cicero’s and Quintilian’s ideas of an
ornate style are not those of the mediaeval writer goes without say-
ing, but this difference in taste does not affect the principle involved.
It meant merely a lowering of the standards by which ornamentation
was measured, so that, in the place of the rules of eloquence estab-
lished by classical authorities, were put the recipes for the fine
writing of a Martianus Capella.!
A few words will suffice to show the similarity between the
theory of ancient authorities and the practice of mediaeval writers.
Of the three kinds of speeches which deal with causae finitae, those
speeches which belong to the genus deliberaticum, the purpose of
which is to persuade or dissuade, should employ, we are told, genus
dicendi grandius quoddam et inlustrius.2, Most ornate, however,
should be speeches dealing with quaestiones infinitae, universal
truths of whatever nature, in which the orator should use omnis
apparatus ornatusque dicendi.* To these two groups correspond the
mediaeval sermon, the various documents in which the Church ad-
dressed its people “in the tone of warning, exhortation, and appcal” ‘
the show-speeches in the chronicles, the show-letters which were
always closely related to oratory,® and the treatises of devotion and
edification which were meant to be read aloud. The other type of
speech for which ornate language was essential was that embracing
speeches of praise or blame (genus laudatwum, demonstrativum), not
only of persons but of things, places, and events as well, ecphrases of
1 How slavishly these were followed by Gildas in his so-called Epistula and by the writer
of the Hesperica Famina has been convincingly shown by H. Zimmer, Nennius Vindtcatus,
pp. $30 ff. He rightly says (p. 384) that “ Martianus Capella ist der Lehrmeister fiir das ‘his-
perisch-ausonische Latein.’” For an opposing view, cf. Goetz, Berichte d. Sdchs. Ges. d. Wiss.,
XLVITI (1896), 87.
2 Cicero, de Oratore, ii, 383; cf. Quint., ii, 10, 11.
3 Cicero, de Oratore, iii, $0, 119, especially 124; Quint., iii, 5, 5; cf. Martianus Capella,
v, 441.
4 Cf. Croll, op. cit., p. xxviii.
’ Cf. E. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, pp. 83 ff.; Maximilian Heinemann, Epistulae
amatoriae quomodo cohaereant cum elegits Alexandrints (Strassburg, 1910), pp. 21 ff.
186 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
all sorts.!. Of this type Cicero ? remarks, ex eis fontibus unde omnia
ornamenta dicends sumuntur, licebit etiam laudationem ornare, and
again,’ that these speeches must have plurimum suavitatis, must em-
ploy facta verba, either old words or words employed in a new or
figurative sense, must be rhythmical, non ad similitudinem versuum
sed ad explendam aurium sensum ‘ where he illustrates his meaning
by referring to his description of Sicily in two of the Verrine ora-
tions,® and to his speech de Consulatu Suo. This type will embrace,
in our mediaeval matter, the many descriptions, such as those I have
already referred to in William of Malmesbury, the panegyrics of
saints and kings, such as the Liber Historiae Wambae Regis of Julian
of Toledo, which is marked by the use of poetic expressions, long
periods, and generous rime, perhaps, too, the lives of the saints,
which, however, are closely allied also to the sermon, and such
denunciations of the clergy as we find, for example, in the Epistula
of Gildas and in Map. On the other hand, the style of the strictly
court-speech had to be, for the most part, simple and direct and to
have less adornment than the speeches belonging to the other types. °
That the tradition of this type of oratory lived on, especially in
Rome, we see from Jerome’s letter to Rusticus.’
In regard to the kinds of style recommended for the different
parts of a discourse, ancient rhetorical theory held that since the
chief purpose of the exordium and peroration was to win favor and
to affect the emotions of one’s hearers,® these, but especially the
peroration, should contain, as Cicero puts it,® werba gravia, sonantra,
non uolgaria —in primis translata and be marked by numert. The
exordium ?° had to be much more restrained than the peroration, but
1 Cf. Quint., iii, 7, 26 ff., and ii, 10, 12. 2 de Oratore, ii, 11,45.
3 In de Part. Or., 72.
4 Cf. Orator, 210.
5 In Verrem II, ii, 1 ff.; iv, 72 ff., 106 ff.; so Quint., iii, 7, 27.
6 Cf. Quint., ii, 10, 11.
7 Epistula cxxv, 1, 2, cited above, ed. Vallarsi, p. 935, and quoted by Norden, op. cié.,
pp. 684, 635, where other references are also given.
3 Cf. Cic., de Or., ii, 77, $10 ff., de Part. Or., 8, 27; Quint., iv, 1, 5 ff., vi, 1, 1 ff., Mar-
tianus Capella, v, 544, 565 (cf. 503).
® De Part. Or., 52 ff.
10 Quintilian, iv, 1, 58, says of it, ne quod insolens uerbum, ne audacius translatum, ne aut
ab obsoleta uetustate aut poetica licentia sumptum in principio deprendatur.
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 187
such a distinction is not observed by mediaeval writers who, as we
have seen, spared no effort to make both as ornate as possible. On
the other hand the narratio — whether considered as part of a dis-
course, or as a literary form embracing the fabula or argumentum,
which Cicero describes as ficta res quae tamen fiert potuit, and the
historia, gesta res ab aetatis nostrae memoria remota'— should employ
usitata verba,? and although it should avoid barrenness, should not
run riot in far-fetched descriptions written in imitation of the poets.’
The many zarrationes contained in the: mediaeval collections of
fables, of exempla, and in writings of every sort, a fair cross-section
of which is furnished by Professor Beeson’s Primer,‘ agree pretty
closely with what Cicero and Quintilian say about their nature and
style © and are practically free from schemata and tropv.
That these theories were a part of such rhetorical training as
was given in the schools, both secular and monkish, has, I think,
been made clear by what has already been said. The application of
them to the sermon, whether we consider it as a quaestio infinita or
as a species of the genus deliberativum, was fixed for succeeding
periods by St Augustine in the fourth book of his de Doctrina Chris-
tirana, in which he discusses elocutio, basmg his treatment of the
three kinds of style — submissum, temperatum, grande — and their
uses, upon the de Oratore of Cicero.* Since the preacher’s duty is not
merely to instruct, for which purpose the submissum genus is suffici-
ent, but also to move and to convert (movere et flectere, iv, 26), the
other two are necessary, and these are secured, as the examples
which he quotes (iv, 40) show, by the free use of the schemata ver-
borum. To this authority of St Augustine was added the even
greater weight of the teaching of Martianus Capella with its rules
for the construction of a fine style, the dignitas eloquendi (v, 508 E.)
1 De Invent., i, 19, 27. On the rhetorical theories dealing with these literary forms, cf.
R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzdhlungen (Leipzig, 1906), pp. 84 ff., 152 ff. Note
also Isidore, Etymologiae, i, 40.
2 Cf. Cic., de Oratore, ii, 326.
3 Cf. Quint., ii, 4, 8; iv, 2, 36.
* C. H. Beeson, A Primer of Medieval Latin (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1925).
5 Cf., also Martianus Capella, v, 550.
* C. S. Baldwin, “‘St Augustine and the Rhetoric of Cicero,”’ Proceedings of the Classical
Assn., XXII (London, 1925), 24 ff.
188 Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style
and its description of the figurae elocutionis ad ornandam tantum et
quasi pingendam orationem accomodatae (v, 531).! To Apuleius, if
he was the author of the treatise wep! Epynvelas ascribed to him in
the MSS and in Cassiodorus and Isidore, the sole aim of oratory is
an appeal to the emotions, to give pleasure, or to inspire fear, and
he gives his rules for the attainment of this end: lata anguste, angusta
late, vulgata decenter, nova usitate, usitata nove (dicere), extenuare
magna, maxima e minimis posse efficere aliaque 1d genus plurima.
The same rules, expressed in practically the same language, we find
repeated in two such important books as the Poetria Nova of Geof-
frey of Vinsauf, vv. 114 ff., and the Laborinthus of Everardus Ale-
mannus, vv. 143 ff., vv. 181 ff.2 We have noticed the application by
Aldhelm in his de Virginitate (p. 180 above) of the theory of the use
of the grand style in writings of the genus laudatioum; the contrast
between such “rhetorical reportings’”’ and the plain style suitable to
historical narrative is noted by William of Malmesbury who remarks,
in connection with his quotation from the laudes of Ethelstan (cf.
above, p. 183), that he will rewrite parts of it famtltari stilo. Similarly,
Ekkehard IV, who certainly does not disdain the sttlus rhetortcus
when his subject demands the grand style,‘ remarks in his note to
the Prognosticon Futura Secult of Julian of Toledo,’ that many have
“purified” (emendarunt) the book ad solitum stilum, because Hispania
facundia et Gallicus coturnus obscurtus ... currere videntur.
The right to use the prologue to renderone’s hearer docilts, atientus,
benevolus—the familiar words are repeated by William of Malmesbury
in the Prologue to Gesta Regum, iii — belonged, in the opinion of St
Augustine (de Doctrina Christiana, iv, 2, 3), to the Christian preacher
no less than to the pagan orator. The ancient theories in regard to
1 Cf. Aldhelm, de Virginitate, iv (ed. cit., Ehwald, I, 232), and the interesting passage from
Dante, de Vulgart Eloquentia ii, 6, quoted by Norden, op. cit., p. 753.
2 Cf. W.S. Teuffel, Gesch. d. rim. Lit. (6th ed.), § 367, 7; cf. Apulet opuscula de philosophia,
ed. P. Thomas (Leipzig: Teubner, 1908), p. 176.
* Ed. Edmond Faral, Les Arts Poétiques du XII et du XI1I* Siécle (Paris: Champion, 1924):
“Poetria Nova,” pp. 197 ff.; “‘ Laborinthus,” pp. $37 ff. For an important note on the identity
of the author and the form of the title, Laborinthus, see Faral, op. ctt., pp. 38, 39.
‘ Cf. for example, Casus Sancti Galli, Mon. Germ. Hist., Scriptores, II, 85.
5 Migne, XCVI, 453 ff. The remarks of Ekkehard are edited by Dummler, Zs. f. deutsch.
Altertum, N. F., IT (1869), 21.
Some Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Style 189
it and to the epilogue are restated with characteristic additions by
Martianus Capella, v, 503, 544, 565. Especially noteworthy are his
statements (v, 505) that a pathetica dictio is fitting for the epilogue,
and that this must not be confined to the end of a discourse only,
but be employed whenever the matter permitted, as, for example,
in digressions — a rule which hardly any mediaeval writer fails to
observe. To St Jerome, in one of his letters,’ the epilogue is the
sailors’ celeuma raised at the happy completion of their voyage, and
this passage, as I have pointed out above (p. 180), was in Aldhelm’s
mind when he wrote the Epilogue to his de Virginitate. The warning
of classical rhetoric that the prologue and epilogue must be closely
connected with the other parts of the discourse and arise out of
them ? was, of course, seldom heeded, and the emphasis was laid
entirely upon their purpose to stir the hearer or reader, a result to
be achieved by the observance of such rules for fine writing as those
laid down by Martianus Capella (v, 509 ff., for example), or those
described and illustrated in the textbooks on grammar and rhetoric
which I have mentioned.
Such evidence — and it might easily be increased — shows, it
seems to me, that more attention must be paid than hitherto
to the methods of rhetorical training during the Middle Ages
and to the relation between theory and practice, if we would solve
the riddle of Mediaeval Latin style. The question is, of course, im-
portant not only for Mediaeval Latin but concerns equally the rise
of prose in the vernaculars, indeed in our own English, as Croll
points out.*? For here, too, the trop: and the schemata appear in
most profusion exactly in the same kinds of writing and in the same
parts of a discourse to which ancient rhetorical theory and mediaeval
practice had assigned them.
Tas On1o Stare UNIVERSITY.
1 Epistula xiv, 10 (ed. Vallarsi, I, 36).
2 Cf. Cicero, de Oratore, ii, 310 ff.
3 Op. cit. supra, p. xlviii. The same is true for the rise of English verse forms as is shown
by J. M. Berdan, The Romanic Review, VII (1916), 288-318.
AN INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS IN MISS ALMA
BLOUNT’S UNPUBLISHED ONOMASTICON
ARTHURIANUM
FOREWORD
printing an Inder of the abbreviations adopted by Miss
Alma Blount in her unpublished Onomasticon of the mediaeval
Arthurian romances (personal names and place-names), it is hoped
that SpecuLum is hereby rendering a useful service, not only to
mediaevalists, especially to that band of workers who have dedi-
cated themselves to the study of Arthurian Romance, but also to
the ever-increasing number of students of the important subject of
personal names and place-names.
The need of a general onomasticon of mediaeval romance has
long been felt, but the preparation of such a work is an undertaking
not lightly to be entered upon. Over thirty years ago Mr Alfred
Nutt gave clear expression to the significance and to the difficulties
of this problem:
Il me semble qu’une des ceuvres dont ]’étude des romans arthuriens
profiterait le plus serait la compilation d’un Onomasticon Arthurranum qui
tiendrait compte de |’ensemble des textes tant manuscrits qu’imprimés.
Ce serait 1&4 une ceuvre gigantesque, mais qui pourrait étre menée a bonne
fin si tous les érudits qui s’occupent de ces études y apportaient un con-
cours actif. — Revue Celtique, XII (1891), 228.
Progress has already been made, but much remains to be done in
this hitherto somewhat negkected field. The Middle Ages have yet to
find their Pauly-Wissowa, though we are grateful to the late Ernest
Langlois for his Table des noms propres . . . compris dans les chansons
de geste imprimées (Paris, 1904), to Lewis Spence for his Dictionary
of Mediaeval Romance and Romance Writers (London, 1913), and for
such important Namenverzeichnisse to individual authors and works
as that included in the Worterbuch by the late Wendelin Forster
(and H. Breuer) to the complete works of Chrétien de Troyes,
and the indexes of. proper names supplied by Dr H. Oskar Sommer
to his edition of Malory’s Mort Darthur and of the.Vulgate Version of
the Arthurian Romances. ‘These, however, are but beginnings, each
representing in varying degrees of excellence a first step toward an
ultimate goal.
190
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 191
A very special debt of gratitude is due to Miss Alma Blount
(Associate Professor, State Normal College, Ypsilanti, Michigan)
for her substantial contribution to mediaeval Hilfsmittel. In 1898,
at the suggestion of the late Professor William Henry Schofield
(Harvard University), Miss Blount undertook the preparation of
an Onomasticon of the mediaeval Arthurian romances and for a
period of eight years (1898-1905) she gathered materials in various
American and European libraries.! These very considerable collec-
tanea, made on slips of paper 3” X 5” and arranged in alphabetical
order by proper name (with cross-references), are at present con-
veniently deposited in a cabinet in the Treasure Room of the Widener
Library, Harvard University, where, thanks to the generosity of
Miss Blount, they stand permanently at the disposal of qualified
students and investigators. Miss Blount has excerpted the personal
names and place-names from some two hundred works, composed
in ten languages — a large and internationally representative array
of titles. The importance and usefulness of this work can, indeed,
scarcely be exaggerated. There are, of course, lacunae, and, in.ex-
amining the Indez, the reader will miss certain important titles and
lesser ones as well. The chronicle-histories, for example, except for
that of Pierre de Langtoft, the Chroniques d’ Anjou, and Trevisa’s
translation of Higden’s Polychronicon, remain to be excerpted. In
many instances more satisfactory editions than those used by Miss
Blount have become available, and these must ultimately be taken
into consideration and added to the present collection. A list of
chronicle-titles to be examined for Arthurian names is at present in
preparation by Miss Evangelia H. Waller, graduate student in Rad-
cliffe College, who thus far has brought together one hundred and
twenty titles. When completed, Miss Waller’s bibliographical sur-
vey will provide a point of departure for the continuation and con-
clusion of Miss Blount’s Onomasticon Arthurianum:
In registering the proper names, Miss Blount perforce made ex-
1 1898-1899 in the Harvard Library (Cambridge), 1899 in the Newberry Library and the
Library of the University of Chicago (Chicago), 1899-1900 in the Library of Cornell Univer-
sity (Ithaca), 1900-1908 intermittently in the Harvard Library, and 1904—1905 in the British
Museum and in the Bibliothéque Nationale. See also Harvard Library Notes, No. 4, April,
1921, p. 74. |
192 Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
tensive use of abbreviation in the citation of references. Some of
these abbreviations are immediately intelligible, but others require
interpretation. Indeed, without such a key as is furnished here, the
Onomasticon can be used only with difficulty and considerable loss
of time. Therefore, in order both to direct the attention of students
to this important collection of unpublished material, and to render
it immediately accessible to them pending arrangements for com-
pletion and publication, it has seemed desirable to publish at once
(with Miss Blount’s approval) an Inder of these abbreviations, to-
gether with their proper interpretation.
The Index is arranged alphabetically by abbreviation, and the
order of items under each entry is as follows: abbreviation; the
edition used by Miss Blount; the mode of reference (unless other-
wise stated, references are to the verses of poems); and, for the espe-
cial convenience of visiting workers, the shelf-mark in the Harvard
Library of the title cited. In the case of a few early printed books,
the press-mark of the British Museum has been supplied. Attention
is occasionally directed to a more recent edition than that used by
Miss Blount; but these supplementary notices do not pretend to
completeness, and corrections and further suggestions will be most
welcome. Finally, it may be noted that the title “Gismir.,” not in
the Harvard Library at the time of writing (March, 1926), has been
ordered and should be available for consultation at an early date.
To a large measure, the usefulness of the Inder is due to Miss
Waller’s careful examination, painstaking arrangement, and patient
verification of the bibliographical notes on which the Indez is based.
F. P. Macoun, JR.
A.& K.C. King Arthur and the King of Cornwall, ed. Child,
Ballad No. 30. [25251.15]
A.& M. Arthour and Merlin (Auchinlech MS.), ed. E. Kal-
bing, Altengl. Bibl., IV (1890), 3-272. [12415.4]
1 By application to the Publishing Editor, offprints of the Indez may be had post-free
for thirty-five cents (35¢) so long as the supply lasts.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 193
A.&M.(D). -Arthour and Merlin (Douce MS.), ed. E. Kélbing,
Altengl. Bibl., IV (1890), 276-355 (right-hand col.).
[12415.4]
A.&M.(H). Arthur and Merlin (Harleian MS.). Frag. of 62 vv.,
printed in “Exordial Observations” to Arthour and
Merlin, [ed. W. B. D. D. Turnbull] (Abbotsford Club
[Publ. No. 12], 1838), pp. x-xiii. [Br. 8011.5.12*]?
A.& M.(L). Arthour and Merlin (Lincoln MS.), ed. E. Kélbing,
Altengl. Bibl., ITV (1890), 275-370 (left-hand col.).
[12415.4]
A.&M.(Lo). Merlin by Lonelich the Skinner, ed. E. Kolbing,
Altengl. Bibl., IV (1890), 373-408. [12415.4]
A.&M.(P). =‘ [Arthur and] Merline, ed. J. W. Hales and F. J. Furni-
vall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript (London,
1867-68), 1, 422-496. [25247.3]
A.of A. Anturs of Arther, ed. J. Robson, Three Early Eng-
lish Metrical Romances (Camden Soc. Publ. [No. 18],
1842), pp. 1-26. Cited by stanza. ([Br. 73.4.42.2]
Cf. ed. F. J. Amours, Scottish Alliterative Poems, Scot. Text Soc., Orig.
Ser., [Nos. 27 and $8], London 1896-97, pp. 116-171. [11495.87]
A.of K.A. Avowynge of King Arther ..., ed. J. Robson, Three
Early English Metrical Romances (Camden Soc.
Publ. [No. 18], 1842), pp. 57-93. Cited by stanza.
[Br. 73.4.42.2]
Agr. Agravain. Names from summary by P. Paris, Les
Romans de la Table Ronde (Paris, 1868-77), V,
297-330. Cited by page. [27272.8]
Cf. ed. H. O. Sommer, The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances
(Washington, D.C., 1909-16), Vol. V. [27271.1.5F]
Anjou Chroniques d’ Anjou, ed. P. Marchegay and A. Sal-
mon, Soc. de |’Hist. de France (Paris, 1856), I, 14-15.
Detailed references not given. [Fr. 65.25.13.20]
Ariosto Orlando Furioso. Cited by book, but incomplete.
1 Books whose shelf-mark is followed by a star (*) are to be found in the Treasure Room
of the Widener Library.
194. Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
Art. Arthur; A Short Sketch of his Life and History in
English Verse, ed. F. J. Furnivall, E.E.T.S., Orig.
Ser., No. 2, 1864. [11472.2]
Atre L’ Atre Perillous, ed. anonymously as “Der Gefahr-
volle Kirchhof,” Herrig’s Archiv, XLU (1868), 148-
212. Cited by stanza. [Philol. 325]
B.& G. Conto de Bruno e de Galecto suo fillio, ed. P. Papa,
Giornale Storico della Lett. Ital., II (1884), 216, 217.
Detailed references not given. [P. Ital. 196.3]
B.& M. The Boy and the Mantle, ed. Child, Ballad No. 29.
Cited by stanza. [(25251.15]
B.I. Le Bel Inconnu, ed. C. Hippeau, Paris, 1860.
[27273.48]
Cf. ed. G. P. Williams, Lt Biaus Descouneiis de Renaud de Beaxjeu,
Oxford: Fox, Jones & Co., 1915. [27273.48.5]
Bataglia La Bataglhia de Tristano e Lancelotto e della Reina
Isotta. Unpublished. Names from summary by
Pio Rajna in Curiosita Letterarre (Bologna, 1873),
CXXXV, xlii-xlii. Detailed references not given.
(Ital. 6320.135]
Bead. Beaudous by Robert de Blois, ed. J. Ulrich, Robert
von Blois. Sammiliche Werke (Berlin, 1889), Vol. I.
[37596.33.2]
Blandin Blandin de Cornouailles, ed. P. Meyer, Romania, II
(1873), 170-201. [Philol. 365]
Bojardo Orlando Innamorato. Cited by book, but incomplete.
Brait El Baladro del Sabio Merlin [i.e. “Le Brait du Sage
Merlin’’], Burgos, 1498. Names from summary in
the introduction to Merlin (ed. G. Paris and J.
Ulrich, 5.A.T.F., 1886), I, Ixxxi-xci; cf. pp. Ixxii ff.
[27271.11a]
Brun Brun de la Montaigne, ed. P. Meyer, S.A.T.F., Paris,
1875. [27283.7]
Brux.I }
Brux.II
C.D.E.
C.et L.
C.of C.
Can.Mor.
Card.
Chantes
Chants
Char.
Chaucer
Chiev.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 195
Een paar fragmenten van den Roman van Perchevael,
ed. F. van Veerdeghem, Bull. de [’Acad. roy. de
Belgique, 3e Ser., XX (1890), 642-653; 653-664.
[L. Soc. 451.6.4]
In Chevalrers as Deus Espees, ed. W. Forster, Halle,
1877. [27273.60]
Claris et Laris, ed. J. Alton, Bibl. d. litterar. Vereins
(Tiibingen, 1884), Vol. CLXIX. [27273.23]
The Carle of Carlile, ed. Sir F. Madden, Sir Gawayne,
A Collection of Ancient Romance-Poems (London,
1839), pp. 256-274. [Br. 8012.10.61*]
Cf. ed. J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manu-
script (London, 1867-68), ITI, 277-294. [25947.8]
Canzone Morale by Antonio Pucci, ed. Pio Rajna,
Zs. f. roman. Philol., I (1877), 382-384. Detailed
references not given. ([Philol. 375]
Carduino, ed. Pio Rajna, Curtosita Letterarve (Bo-
logna, 1873), CXXXV, 1-45. Cited by canto and
stanza. (Ital. 6320.135]
Merlin: Fragments de Ballades, ed. Vicomte H. de la
Villemarqué, Barzaz Breiz: Chants Populaires de la
Bretagne (6th ed., Paris, 1867), pp. 56-75. [27224.12]
La Marche d Arthur, ed. Vicomte H. de la Ville-
marqué, Barzaz Breiz: Chants Populatres de la
" Bretagne (6th ed., Paris, 1867), pp. 49-51. [27224.12]
Le Chevalrer de la Charrette (Lancelot), by Chrétien
de Troyes, ed. W. Forster, Christian von Troyes.
Sdmiliche erhaltene Werke, 1V, 1-252, Halle, 1899.
[37596.10]
Wrfe of Bath’s Tale.
Chievrefoul, ed. K. Warnke, Die Lais der Marie
de France (Ist. ed., Halle, 1885), pp. 181-185.
[37594.40]
Cf. Sd rev. ed., Halle: Niemeyer, 1925, Chtevrefuew, pp. 181-185.
[27224.23.8.15]
196
Cleg.
Clig.
Cor
Crone
D.of R.
Daniel
de T.
Dur.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
Sir Cleges (Auchinlech MS.), ed. H. Weber, Metrical
Romances of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Centuries (Edin-
burgh, 1810), I, 881-353. [27264.26]
Cf. Auchinlech and Ashmole MSS, ed. A. Treichel, Englische Studten,
XXII (1896), $45-S89. [Philol. 660}
Cligés by Chrétien de Troyes, ed. W. Férster, Halle,
1888. [37595.36]
Cf. Sd ed., Halle, 1910. [87595.36.51]
Le Lai du Cor by Robert Biquet, ed. F. A. Wulff,
Lund and Paris, 1888. [27273.37]
Diu Créne by Heinrich von dem Tiirlin, ed. G. H. F.
Scholl, Bibl. d. litterar. Vereins (Stuttgart, 1852),
Vol. XXVII. [46585.38]
The Dream of Rhonabwy, trans. Lady Charlotte
Guest, The Mabinogion (London, 1838-49), IT, 393-
418. Cited by page. [Celt. 4427.5]
For Welsh text, cf. The Text of the Mabinogion .. . from the Red Book
of Hergest (ed. Sir J. Rh$s and Dr J. G. Evans, Oxford, 1887), I, 144-161
{Celt. 4427.9]; for authoritative transl., cf. Joseph Loth, Les Mabinogion
(2d ed., Paris, 1918), I, 847-877. [Celt. 4427.8]
Daniel von dem Bliihenden Tal by Der Stricker, ed.
G. Rosenhagen, Germanistische Abhandlungen (Bres-
lau, 1894), Vol. IX. [Philol. 530]
Merlin, ed. P. J. B. LeGrand d’Aussy, Fabliaux ou
Contes, Fables et Romans du 12e et du 13e Siécle ...
(3d ed., Paris, 1829), V, 138-143. Detailed refer-
ences not given. [26231.4]
Ser Degrevant, ed. J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, The
Thornton Romances (Camden Soc. Publ., No. 30,
1844), pp. 177-256. [Br.73.4.44.2]
Cf. ed. K. Luick, Wiener Beitrige zur Engl. Philol. (Vienna, 1917), Vol.
XLVI. [27271.37.9]
See “T. (de)”.
Durmarit le Galois, ed. E. Stengel, Bibl. des litterar.
Vereins (Stuttgart, 1873), Vol. CX VI. [27273.63]
E.O.
Edolanz
Emaré
Erec
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 197
Tristrant by Eilhart von Oberg, ed. F. Lichtenstein,
Quellenu. Forschungen, Vol. XTX (1877). [Philol.525]
For new edition of Lichtenstein, op, cit., pp. 1-23, “‘ Bruchstiicke des
alten Gedichtes,” cf. ed. K. Wagner, Etlhart von Oberg. Tristrant. I,
Die alten Bruchstiicke, Rheinische Beitrige, V (1924). [Philol.208]
Long poem preserved only in frags. Cited by frag-
ment and edited as follows :
I. H. Hoffmann, Arde Blatter, I (1840),
148-152. [46573.2] \
II. A. Schinbach, Zs. f. deutsches Altertum, XXV
(1881), 273-279. [Philol. 495]
Ill. H. Hoffmann, Altdeutsche Blatter, II (1840),
152-159. [46573.2]
IV.
K. Regel, Zs. f. deutsches Altertum, XI (1859),
490-500. [Philol.495]
V. RR. Kohler, Germania, V (1860), 461, 462.
[Philol.502]
VI. Possibly also belonging to the same poem: a
short frag., ed. H. Suchier, Germania, XVIII
(1873), 115, 116. [Philol.502]
Emaré, ed. J. Ritson, Ancient Engl. Metr. Romances,
rev. E. Goldsmid (Edinburgh, 1885), Hl, 185-215.
[27264.25]
Cf. ed. A. B. Gough, Old and Middle English Texts (London, 1901),
Vol. II. [27283.6.9]; tdem, ed. Edith Rickert, Chicago diss., 1907.
[27283.6.10]
Erec et Enide by Chrétien de Troyes, ed. W. Forster,
Halle, 1896. [37595.36.7]
Cf. 2d wholly rev. ed., Halle, 1909. [387595.86.50.18]
Erez Saga, ed. G. Cederschiéld, Copenhagen, 1880.
Cited by page. [27273.43]
Escanor by Girard d’Amiens, ed. H. Michelant,
Bibl. d. litterar. Vereins (Tiibingen, 1886), Vol.
CLXXVITI. Cited by page. [37597.28]
198
Espée.
F.&B.
F.et F.
F.et L.
Faiz Tr.
Fer.
U Fer.D.
Fred.
G.& C.of C.
G.& G.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
Le Chevalier a P Espée, ed. D. M. Méon, Nouveau
recueul de fabliaux et contes inédits (Paris, 1823), I,
127-164. [26232.5]
Cf. ed. E. C. Armstrong, Johns Hopkins diss., Baltimore, 1900.
[27278.28.6]
Il Febusso e Breuesso (publ. by Lord Vernon], Flor-
ence, 1847. [27273.22]
Floriant et Florete, ed. F. Michel, Roxburghe Club
Publ. [No. 97], Edinburgh, 1873. [Br.88.5.97*].
Floris et Liriopé by Robert de Blois, ed. W. von
Zingerle, Altfranz. Bibl. (Leipzig, 1891), Vol. XII
[37595.35]
Les Faiz du Chevalier Tristan, publ. A. Vérard, Paris,
1489. In two parts of 84 and 47 chs. resp. The names
have not been collected because there is no pagina-
tion. For contents, see cross-references under
“Trtn.” infra. British Museum press-mark: C.39.1.8.
Fergus by Guillaume le Clerc, ed. E. Martin, Halle,
1872. Cited by page. [27273.24]
Ferguut (Dutch version of ‘“Fer.’”), ed. L. G.
Visscher, Utrecht, 1836. [27273.24.5]
Cf. ed. E. Verwijs, Bibl. v. Middelneder]. Letterkunde, Groningen, 1888.
[Neth. 4214.8]; tdem, ed. J. Verdam, Leyden, 1908; idem, ed. G. S.
Overdiep, Leyden: Sijthoff, 1924.
Hertig Fredrik af Normandie; efter gamla Handskrifter
pa Svenska och Danska, ed. J. A. Ahlstrand, Stock-
holm, 1853. Refs. to Swedish text only. [7283.47]
Syre Gawene and the Carle of Carelyle, ed. Sir F.
Madden, Sir Gawayne, A Collection of Ancient
Romance-Poems (London, 1839), pp. 187-206.
[Br.8012.10.61*]
Golagros and Gawane, ed. Sir F. Madden, Sir Ga-
wayne, A Collection of Ancient Romance-Poems
(London, 1839), pp. 131-183. [Br.8012.10.61*]
Cf. ed. M. Trautmann, Anglia, II (1878-79), 895-440 [Philol. 665];
tdem, ed. F. J. Amours, Scottish Alliterative Poems, Scot. Text Soc., Orig.
Ser. [Nos. 27 and 38], (London, 1896-97), pp. 1-46. [11495.37]
G.& G.K.
G.ap A.
G.K.
G.S.
Garel G
Garel Z
Gaur.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Indez 199
Syr Gawayn and the Grene Knyzt, ed. Sir F. Mad-
den, Sir Gawayne, A Collection of Ancient Romance-
Poems (London, 1839), pp. 1-92. [Br.8012.10.61*]
Cf. ed. J. R. R. Tolkien and E. V. Gordon, Oxford, 1925. [27278.27.15]
Brut Gruffudd ap Arthur. Names excerpted from
San-Marte’s (i.e. Albert Schulz) notes to his Gott-
fried’s von Monmouth Historia Regum Britanniae ...
und Brut Tysylio (Halle, 1854), pp. 177-471. The
Welsh names are equated with the corresponding
Latin forms, q.v. See ed. cit, p. xlvii for San-Marte’s
abbreviations. [Br.1005.44]
For Welsh text, cf. Myvyrian Archatology of Wales (2d ed., Denbigh,
1870), pp. 476-554. [Celt.4818.6]; but students of the Welsh Bruis
should note A. Griscom, “The Book of Basingwerk and MS. Cotton
Cleopatra B. V.,” Y Cymmrodor, XXXV (1925), 49-116; XXXVI,
(1926) 1-88.
The Grene Knight, ed. Sir F. Madden, Sir Gawayne,
A Collection of Ancient Romance-Poems (London,
1839), pp. 224-242. [Br.8012.10.61*]
Cf. ed. J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manu-
script (London, 1867-68), II, 58-77. [25247.3]
Tristan und Isot by Gottfried von Strassburg, ed.
R. Bechstein (2d ed., Leipzig, 1873).
Ist ed., 1869. [46587.7]
Cf. ed. K. Marold, in Teutonia VI (1906). I. Teil: Text. [46585.18.9]
Garel vom bliihenden Thal by Der Pleier.
Names from the abstracts in Gédecke’s Grundriss
z. Gesch. d. deutsch. Literatur, I (1884), 135-1387
for “‘Garel G”’ (Ref. 478.4]; and from I. V. Zingerle’s
Fresken-cyclus des schlosses Runkelstein bei Bozen
(Innsbruck, 1857], pp. 6-11 for “Garel Z”’ [28271.7].
Detailed references are not given.
Cf. ed. M. Walz, Garel von dem Bliienden Tal ... mit den Fresken des
Garelsaales auf Runkelstein, Freiburg i. Br., 1892. [272%71.38.2]
Gaurvel von Muntabel; eine hofische Erzaéhlung aus d.
13. Jahrh. by Konrad von Stoffe, ed. F. Khull,
Graz, 1885. [German Library]
200 Onomasticon Arthurianum — Indez
Ger. Geraint the Son of Erbin, trans. Lady Charlotte Guest,
The Mabinogion (London, 1838-49), IT, 67-141. Cited
by page. [Celt.4427.5]
For Welsh text, cf. ed., cit. sub ““D. of R.”’, I, 244-295; for tranal., cf.
ed. cit. sub “‘D. of R.”, I, 121-185.
Girone Girone il Cortese, ed. F. Tassi, Florence, 1855. Cited
by page. [27273.35]
Gismir. Il Gismirante, ed. F. Corazzini, Miscellanea di Cost
Inedite o Rare (Florence, 1853), pp. 275-306. Cited
by canto and stanza.
Gliglois Gliglois. Unpublished. Names from summary in
Hist. Litt. de la France, XXX, 161-170. Detailed
references not given. [37531.2]
Cf. holograph transcript by Wendelin Forster of unique MS., Cod.
Taurensis francais L. wv. 23, destroyed by the fire of January 26, 1904
in the Biblioteca Nazionale di Torino. [27271.57F]
Gol.Horn Das Goldene Horn, ed. I. V. Zingerle, Germania, V
(1860), 102-105. Cited by page. [Philol.502]
Gorlagon Arthur and Gorlagon, ed. G. L. Kittredge, [Harvard]
Studies and Notes in Philol. and Interature, VIII
(1903), 150-162. Detailed references not given.
[Philol.343]
Grim. Histoire de Grimaud, ed. E. F. F. Hucher, Le Saznt-
Graal ou le Joseph d Arimathte (Le Mans and Paris,
1875-78), III, 311-738. Cited by page. [27272.13]
Guingamor Guingamor, ed. G. Paris, Romania, VIII (1879),
50-59. [Philol.365]
Cf. ed. P. Kusel, in K. Warnke, Die Lais der Marte de France, $d rev.
ed. (Halle: Niemeyer, 1925), pp. 238-255. [27224.23.8.15]
H.& M. Herowdes and Merlin. Story XI [Sapientes] in The
Proces of the Seuyn Sages, ed. H. Weber, Metrical
Romances of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Centuries (Edin-
burgh, 1810), III, 91-99. [27264.26]
Cf. ed. K. Campbell, The Seven Sages of Rome (Boston: Ginn, 1907),
pp. 88-95. [27282.50.4]
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 201
H.F. Tristan by Heinrich von Freiberg, ed. R. Bechstein,
Leipzig, 1877. [46587.17]
Cf. ed. A. Bernt, Heinrich von Freiberg, Halle, 1906: Tristan, pp. 1-211.
[46585.87] .
H.G. The History of the Holy Grail by Herry Lonelich, ed.
F. J. Furnivall, E. E. T. S., Extra Ser., Nos. 20
(Part i), 24 (Part ii), 28 (Part iii), 30 (Part iv), 95
(Part v). References by volume and page. Parts
v, i, and ii = Vol. I; Parts iii and iv = Vol. II.
[11473.20]
H.G.(W). Y Seint Greal (Welsh), ed. R. Williams, London,
1876. 2 vols. Names cited by page from English
translation I, 437-720. [27273.20]
H.H.G. History of the Holy Grail, ed. F. J. Furnivall, Rox-
burghe Club Publ. (No. 80], (London, 1861-683).
2 vols. Cited by page. [Br. 88.5.80*]
Hart.E. Erec by Hartmann von Aue, ed. M. Haupt (2d ed.,
Leipzig, 1871). [46585.36]
Hart.I. Iwein by Hartmann von Aue, ed. E. Henrici, Halle,
1891-93. [46585.32.2] 3
Higden Usually cited as “* Trev.’’, q.v.
Horn Ain Hupsches Vasnacht Spill... von Kunig Artus
[und das Horn], ed. H. A. von Keller, Fastnachtsprele
aus d. 15. Jahrh.— Nachlese, Bibl. d. litterar. Vereins
(Stuttgart, 1858), XLVI, 183-215. Cited by page.
[47512.56]
Hucher Le Saint-Graal ou le Joseph d’ Arimathie, ed. E. F. F.
Hucher (Le Mans and Paris, 1875-78), II, 1-539;
III, 1-808. Cited by page. [27272.13]
Humbaut Gauvain et Humbaut. Names from summary in Hist.
Lntt. de la France, XXX, 69-71. Detailed references
not given. [37531.2]
Cf. ed. H. Breuer, Hunbaut, Gesells. f. roman. Literatur (Dresden,
1914), Bd. 85. [27273.85]
202
Huth
Ider
Isald.
Ivn.
J.A.
J.of A.(P).
J.of A.(R).
J.of A.(V).
J.of A.(W).
J.of G.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
Merlin (Huth MS.), ed. G. Paris and J. Ulrich,
S.A.T.F. (Paris, 1886). 2 vols. Cited by page.
(27271.11a]
Ider. Names from summary in Hist. Litt. de la
France, XXX, 199-215. Detailed references not
given. [37531.2]
Cf. ed. H. Gelzer, Der altfranz. Yderroman, Gesells. f. roman. Literatur
(Dresden, 1918), Bd. $1. [@7273.41.5]
Tristrant und Isalde, ed. Fr. Pfaff, Bibl. d. litterar.
Vereins (Tiibingen, 1881), Vol. CLIT. Cited by page
[Ger. 10546.90]
Ivents Saga, ed. E. Kolbing, Riddaraségur (Strass-
burg and London, 1872), pp. 75-136. Cited by page.
[27266.27]
Cf. new ed., E. Kélbing, Altnord. Saga-Bibl., No. 7, Halle, 1898,
[Scan 4600.7]
Der Prosaroman von Joseph von Arimathia, ed. G.
Weidner, Oppeln, 1881. Cited by page. [27273.18]
De Sancto Joseph ab Arimathia, publ. Pynson, 1516.
Prose. Ed. W. W. Skeat, E. E. T.S., Orig. Ser.,
No. 44 (1871), pp. 33, 34. Cited by page. [11472.4]
Lyfe of Joseph of Armathia, black-letter ed. by
Pynson, 1520. Poem. Ed. W. W. Skeat, E. E. T.5.,
Orig. Ser., No. 44 (1871), pp. 37-49. |11472.4]
Joseph of Aramathie (alliterative poem in the Vernon
MS.), ed. W. W. Skeat, E.E.T.S., Orig. Ser., No. 44
(1871), pp. 1-23. [1147.4]
Lyfe of Joseph of Armathy, black-letter ed. by
Wynkyn de Worde. Prose. Ed. W. W. Skeat,
E.E.T.S., Orig. Ser., No. 44 (1871), pp. 27-32.
Cited by page. [11472.4]
The Jeaste of Syr Gawayne, ed. Sir F. Madden, Ser
Gawayne, A Collection of Ancient Romance-Poems
(London, 1839), pp. 207-223. [Br. 8012.10.61*] .
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 203
Jaufré Jaufré. Names from summary of Geoffroz et Bruins-
sende, in Hist. Litt. de la France, XXII, 224-234.
Detailed references not given. [37531.2]
Cf. ed. F. J. M. Raynouard, Lexique Roman, I (1836), 48-178. [6275.12]
J.D. Bruce, Evolution of Arthurian Romance, II, 287, n. 38, notes a new
ed. in preparation. [27271.1.15]
K.A.D. Kinge Arthurs Death, ed. J. W. Hales and F. J.
Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript (Lon-
don, 1867-68), I, 498-507. [25247.3]
K.& O. Kilhwch and Olwen or the Twrch Trwyth, trans. Lady
Charlotte Guest, The Mabinogion (London, 1838-49),
II, 249-318. Cited by page. (Celt. 4427.5]
For Welsh text, cf. ed. cit. sub. “D. of R.”, I, 100-148; for tranal.,
cf. op. cit. sub. ““D. of R.”, I, 243-346.
K.K. Kempy Kay, ed. Child, Ballad No. 33. |25251.15]
K.O. Kemp Owyne, ed. Child, Ballad No. 34. (25251.15]
K.R.C. King Ryence’s Challenge, in Percy’s Reliques of An-
cient English Poetry (ed. Philadelphia, 1855, pp. 328,
$29). |25241.31]
L. &S. Lantsloot [ende Sandrijn], ed. A. H. Hoffmann von
Fallersleben, Horae Belgicae (Breslau, 1836), Part vi,
158-166. Detailed references not given. [Neth.
4210.2]
L.D. Libeaus Desconus, ed. M. Kaluza, Altengl. Bibl.
(Leipzig, 1890), Vol. V. [12415.5]
L.D.(P). Libius Disconius, ed. J. W. Hales and F. J. Furni-
vall, Brshop Percy’s Folio Manuscript (London,
1867-68), I], 415-497. [25247.3]
L.d’A. Lwre d’Artus. Names from summary by E. Frey-
mond, Zs.f.franz. Sprache u. Intteratur, XVII (1895),
21-128. Cited by paragraph. ([Philol. 457]
Cf. ed. H. O. Sommer, The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances
(Washington D.C., 1909-16), Vol. VII. [27271.1.5F]
904
L.du L.
L.du L.(D).
Le M.A.
L.L.
L.L.(G).
L.L.(P).
L.of F.
Lan.{i].!
Lan.{ii}.!
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
Lancelot du Lac, ed. P. Paris, Les Romans de la
Table Ronde (Paris, 1868-77), Vols. III, IV, and V.
Cited by chapter. [27272.8]
Cf. ed. H. O. Sommer, The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances
(Washington, D. C., 1909-16), Vol. V. [27271.1.5F]
Roman van Lancelot (Dutch), ed. W. J. A. Jonck-
bloet, ’s-Gravenhage, 1846. [27271.5]
For Book ui, 1-1160 (which follows “Q.S.G.”
closely) and Book iv (which follows “‘ Mort” closely)
only the variants in spelling from “Q.S.G.” and
“Mort” have been recorded. Cf. ““Torec” infra.
See “M. A. (Le)”.
Lancelot of the Laik, ed. W. W. Skeat, E.E.T.S.,
Orig. Ser., No. 6, 1865. [11472.6]
Cf. rev. ed. M. M. Gray, Scot. Text Soc., N. Ser., No. 2, 1912.
[11495.102]
Sir Launcelott of Dulake, ed. J. H. Dixon, Percy Soc.
Publ., [Vol. XXX] (London 1852), pp. 38-43.
(11466.9(30)]
Sir Lancelott of Dulake, ed. J. W. Hales and F. J.
Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript (London,
(1867-68), I, 84-87. [25247.3]
The Lady of the Fountain, trans. Lady Charlotte
Guest, The Mabinogion (London, 1838-49), I, 39-84.
Cited by page. (Celt. 4427.5]
For Welsh text, cf. ed. cit. sub “‘D. of R.”, I, 162-192; for transl. ed.
cit. sub ““D. of R.”, Oi, 1-45.
Lanval, ed. K. Warnke, Die Lais der Marie de France
(1st ed., Halle, 1885), pp. 86-112. [37594.40]
Cf. 3d rev. ed., Halle: Niemeyer, 1925, pp. 86-112. [27224.28.8.15]
Launfal by Thomas Chestre, ed. J. Ritson, Ancient
Engl. Metr. Romances, rev. ed., E. Goldsmid (Edin-
burgh, 1884-85), II, 1-33. [27264.25]
Cf. ed. M. Kaluza, Englische Studien, XVIII (1893), 168-184. [Philol.
660]
1 No distinction is made between references to Lan. [iJand Lan. [ii]. Unfortunately, both
are cited Lan.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 205
Lan.(B).! Sir Lamwell (Bodleian fragments), ed. J. W. Hales
and F. J. Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript
(London, 1867-68), Vol. I, Appendix, pp. 521-532.
[25247.3]
Lan.(C).! Str Lamuell (Cambridge MS.), ed. F. J. Furnivall,
Captain Cox, his Ballads and Books (Ballad Soc.,
London, 1871), p. xxxi. [25244.9]
Lan.(D).! Sir Lamwell (Douce fragments), ed. J. W. Hales and
F. J. Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript
(London, 1867-68), Vol. I, Appendix, pp. 533-535.
[25247.3]
Lan.(P).! Sir Lambewell (Percy MS.), ed. J. W. Hales and
F. J. Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript
(London, 1867-68), I, 144-164. [25247.3]
Lan.(R). Landavall (Rawlinson MS.), ed. G. L. Kittredge,
| Amer. Journal of Philol., X (1889), 21-32. (Philol. 99]
Lan. Ital. Lancillotto dal Lago, ed. F. Z[ambrini], Curtosita Let-
terarie (Bologna, 1862), XXIII, 9-69. [Ital.6320.16]
Lay. Lazamon’s Brut, ed. Sir F. Madden, London, 1847.
2 vols. Cited by page. [12414.20]
Lejon Herr Ivan Lejon-Riddaren, ed. J. W. Liffman and
G. Stephens, Stockholm, 1849. Many proper names
are recorded without specific reference; here consult
comparative table of names, pp. xlvi, xlvii, and for
an equation of the verses in “‘Lejon” and in “‘ Yvn.”
cf. cols. No.2 and No. 6, “‘ Lejon,” pp. xlviu, xlix—lviii,
lix. [27273.57]
Cf. “Fértekning pd Egen-namn,”’ ed. cit., pp. ccvi-viil.
Lohen. Lohengrin (Bavarian version), ed. H. Riickert,
Bibl. d. gesammten deutsch. National-Lit., Vol. 36,
Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1858. [46577.29]
1 Lan.(B)., Lan.(C)., Lan.(D)., Lan.(P).: for collation of various “‘ Lan.” MSS, cf. A. Kolls,
Zur Lanvalsage. Eine Quellenuntersuchung, Berlin, 1886. [27273.29]
206
Lotto.
Lun.M.
M.A.
M.A.(Le)
M.de P.
M.of G.
Mal.
Man.Hpt.
Manteau
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
La Bataille de Loquifere (a branch of the Geste de
Guillaume au Cort Nés (d’Orange}), extract ed.A.J.V.
LeRoux de Lincy, Le Livre des Légendes (Paris, 1836),
pp. 246-259. Cited by page. |25232.31]
For the numerous unpublished MSS, see L. Gautier, Les Epopées fran-
caises (2d ed., Paris, 1882), IV, 25. [27268.9]. Cf. also P. Paris, Les
Manuscrits francois de la Bibltothéque du Roi (Paris, 1840), ITI, 157-166.
[B.36938.52]
Lancilotto, ed. C. Giannini, Fermo, 1871. Cited by
canto and stanza. [27273.33]
Cf. ed. E. T. Griffith, i Chantars di Lancellotto, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1924. [27273.33.3]
Der Luneten Mantel, ed. H. A. von Keller, Fastnacht-
spiele aus d. 15. Jahrh., Bibl. d. litterar. Vereins
(Stuttgart, 1853), Part ii, 664-678. Cited by page.
[47512.55]
Morte Arthure (alliterative), ed. E. Brock, E.E.T:S.,
Orig. Ser., No. 8 (1871). [1472.8]
Cf. ed. E. Bjtrkmann, Alt- u. Mittelenglische Texte, No. 9, Heidel-
berg, 1915. [27272.5.12]
Le Morte Arthur, from MS. Harl. 2252, ed. F. J.
Furnivall, London, 1864. [27272.5]
Cf. ed. J. D. Bruce, E.E.T.S., Extra. Ser. 88 (1908). [11478.88]
Meraugis de Portlesqguez by Raoul de Houdenc, ed.
M. Friedwagner, Raoul von Houdenc. Sdmtliche W erke
(Halle, 1897), Vol. I. [37596.16.5]
The Marriage of Sir Gawain, ed. Child, Ballad No.
31. [25251.15]
Le Morte Darthur by Sir Thomas Malory, ed. H. O.
Sommer, London, 1889-91. 3 vols. Vol. I: Text.
Cited by page. [27271.3]
Der Mantel, ed. M. Haupt, Alideutsche Blatter (Leip-
zig, 1840), II, 217-240. Cited by page. [46573.2]
Le Mantel Mautaillié, ed. G. Cederschisld and F. A.
Wulff, Versions nordiques du fabliau frangais “‘ Le
Mantel Mautaillié” (Lund, 1877), pp. 1-34. Cited
by page. [25284.32]
Mantel
Mel.
Meler.
Melion
Mer.
ae Mer.D.
Mer. Ital.
Mer.Pro.
Mon.
_~ Morien
Mort
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 207
Der Mantel by Heinrich von dem Tiirlin, ed. O.
Warnatsch, Germanist. Abhandl. (Breslau, 1883),
II, 8-54. [Philol.530]
Mélador by Jean Froissart, ed. A. Longnon,S.A.T.F.,
1895-98. 3 vols. Names in Vol. IIT not excerpted.
[38512.11]
Meleranz by Der Pleier, ed. K. Bartsch, Bibl. d.
Litterar. Vereins (Stuttgart, 1861), Vol. LX.
[27273.67]
Le Lai de Melion, ed. L. J. N. Monmerqué and F.
Michel, Le Lai d’Ignaurés . . . par Renaut (Paris,
1832), pp. 43-67. Cited by page. [27283.24]
Merlin, ed. H. B. Wheatley, E.E.T.S., Orig. Ser.,
Nos. 10, 21, 36, 112. London, 1865-99. 2 vols.
Cited by page. (11472.10]
Merlijn (Dutch), ed. J. van Vloten, Leyden, 1880.
[27271.13.2]
Istoria di Merlino (Italian), ed. G. Ulrich, Curtosita
Letterarve (Bologna, 1884), Vol. CCI. Cited by page.
[Ital. 6320.201]
Merlin (Provencal). Fragments ed. C. Chabaneau,
Fragments d’une Traduction Provencale du Roman de
Merlin, Paris, 1883. Cited by page. (27271.8]
Golttfried’s von Monmouth Historia Regum Britanniae
... und Brut Tysylio, ed. San-Marte (i.e. Albert
Schulz), Halle, 1854. Cited by book and chapter.
[Br.1005.44]
Roman van Moriaen, ed. J. te Winkel, Bibliotek v.
middelnederlandsche Letterkunde, 20.Afl., Gron-
ingen, 1878. [Neth.4214.5]
La Mort d’Artus. Names from summary by P.
Paris, Les Romans de la Table Ronde (Paris, 1877),
V, 332-352. Cited by page. [27272.8]
Cf. ed. J. D. Bruce, Mort Artu, Halle: Niemeyer, 1910. [27272.5.10];
idem, ed. from different MS., H. O. Sommer, The Vulgate Version of
the Arthurian Romances (Washington, D. C., 1909-16), VI, 203-391.
(27271.1.5F] ~
208 Onomasticon Arthurianum — Indez
Mott.
Mule
Nennius
Nennius(Irish)
Novelle
O.M.
Ortu
P.de L.
P.of G.
Mottuls Saga, ed. G. Cederschidld and F. A. Wulff,
Versions nordiques du fabliau francais “‘Le Mantel
Mautaillié” (Lund, 1877), pp. 36-40. Cited by page.
[25284.32]
La Mule sans Frain by Paiens de Maisiéres, ed.
D. M. Méon, Nouveau recueil de fablraur et contes
inédits (Paris, 1823), I, 1-37. [26232.5]
Cf. ed. B. Orlowski, La Demoisele a la Mule: conte en vers du cycle arthur-
ten par Paien de Maisiéres, Paris, 1911. [27%78.13.8]; tdem, ed. R. T.
Hill, La Mule sanz Frain, an Arthurian Romance by Patens de Matsiéres,
Yale diss., publ. Baltimore, 1911. [27273.18.7]
Nennius und Gildas, ed. San-Marte (i.e. Albert
Schulz), Berlin, 1844. Only Nennius excerpted.
Cited by paragraph. ,
Cf. ed. Th. Mommsen, Mon. Hist. Germ., Auctores Antiquissimi,
xiii (1898), 111-222, ‘Historia brittonum cum Additamentes Nennii.”
(Germ.65.2]
The Irish Nennius, ed. E. Hogan, Royal Irish
Academy, Todd Lecture Series, Vol. VI, Dublin,
1895. Cited by page. [L.Soc.1808.40]
Le Novelle Antiche, ed. G. Biagi, Florence, 1880.
Cited by number of “Novella.” [Ital.6305.1]
Owayne Myles, ed. E. Kolbing, Englische Studien, I
(1877), 113-121. [Philol.660]
De Ortu Waluuanii, ed. J. D. Bruce, Pub. Mod.
Lang. Assn., XIIT (1898), 390-432. Cited by page.
[Philo]. 340]
Cf. rev. ed. J. D. Bruce, Historia Meriadoct and De Ortu Waluuanss
(Gottingen and Baltimore, 1913), pp. 54-93. [27278.90]
Chronicle of Prerre de Langtoft, ed. T. Wright,
Rolls Ser., XLVII, i, 94-224. Cited by page.
[Br.98.47]
Sir Perceval of Galles, ed. J. O. Halliwell-Phillips,
The Thornton Romances (Camden Soc. Pub., 1844),
pp. 1-87. [Br.73.4.44.2]
Cf. ed. J. Campion and F. Holthausen, Alt- u. Mittelenglische Texte,
No. 5, Heidelberg, 1918. [27271.13.9]
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 209
P.P. Purgatorium Sancti Patrici, ed. E. Kélbing, Englische
Studien, I (1877), 98-112. Cited by stanza.
[Philol.660]
P.Sag. Parcevals Saga, ed. E. Kolbing, Riddaraségur,
(Strassburg and London, 1872), pp. 3-53. Cited by
page. [27266.27]
Pape. Le Chevalier du Papegau, ed. Ferd. Heuckenkamp,
Halle, 1896. Cited by page. [27271.39]
Pcl. Perceval ou la Quéte du Saint Graal (Didot MS.),
ed. E. F. F. Hucher, Le Satnt-Graal ou le Joseph
d@’ Aremathte (Le Mans and Paris, 1875-78), I, 415—
505. [27272.13]
Per. Perceval le Gallovs ou le Conte du Graal by Chrétien
de Troyes, ed. Ch. Potvin (Mons, 1866-71), Vols.
IT, TIT, IV, V, and VI. [27271.17.2]
Per.(Pr). Perlesvauz (prose), ed. Ch. Potvin, Perceval le Gallots
ou le Conte du Graal (Mons, 1866-71), Vol. 1. Cited
by page. [27271.17.2]
Perl. Tres plarsante et recreative Hystoire du tres preulz et
vatllant cheuallier Perceval le Galloys. . . . Jehan
Longis, Jehan Sainct Denis, et Galliot du Pre,
Paris, 1530. Cited by folio from British Museum
copy, press-mark: C.7.b.10.
Philippe Histoire du Lancelot du Lac by Philippe le Noir,
Paris, 1533. 3 vols. Cited by folio from British
Museum copy, press-mark: 837.].11.
Prd. Peredur the Son of Evrawc, trans. Lady Charlotte
Guest, The Mabinogion (London, 1838-49), I, 297-
370. Cited by page. [Celt.4427.5]
For Welsh text, cf. ed. Kuno Meyer, Peredur ab Efrawe, Leipzig, 1887.
[27271.16.3]; also ed. cit. sub ‘‘D. of R.”’, I, 193-248; for trans., op. ctt.
sub “‘D. of R.”’, IT, 47-120.
Pulz. | Pulzella Gaza, ed. Pio Rajna, Florence, 1898. Cited
by stanza. ([27273.28.2]
210
Q.5.G.
R.de T.
R.S.G.
Rag.
Rigomer
Skene
Skikk.
T.(de)
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
La Queste del Saint Graal, ed. F. J. Furnivall, from
MSS in the British Museum, Roxburghe Club [No.
84], London, 1864. Cited by page. [Br.88.5.84*]
Le Roman de Tristan by Béroul, ed. F. Michel, The
Poetical Romances of Tristan. . . . Composed in the
zit. and xiit. Centuries (London, 1835-39), I, 3-212.
Cited by page. [27272.30*]
Cf. ed. Ernest Muret in Classiques Frang. du Moyen Age, @d. rev. ed.,
Paris, 1922.
Roman du Saint-Graal [or Joseph d’ Arimathie}, ed
F. J. Furnivall, History of the Holy Grail (Roxburghe
Club [No. 80], London, 1861-63. 2 vols.), Appendix
to Vol. I. [Br.88.5.80*]
La Vengeance de Raguidel, ed. C. Hippeau, Paris,
1862. [27273.50]
Cf. ed. M. Friedwagner, Raoul von Houdenc. Samtliche Werke (Halle,
1909), Vol. II. [37596.16.5]
Rigomer by Jehan. Names from summary in H1si.
Intt. de la France, XXX (1888), 86-96. Detailed
references not given. [37531.2]
Cf. ed. W. Furster, Les Mervelles de Rigomer (i and ii), Gesells. f. roman.
Lit., (Dresden, 1908-15), Bd. 19, 89. [7273.53]
W. F. Skene, Four Ancient Books of Wales, Edin-
burgh, 1868. Vol. I (Engl. transl. of ash text).
Cited by page. ([Celt.4250.5]
Skikkju Rimur, ed. G. Cederschidld and F. A.
Wulff, Versions nordiques du fabliau francais “Le
Mantel Mautaillié” (Lund, 1877), pp. 51-71. Cited
by stanza. [25284.32]
De Tristan (Bern MS.), ed. F. Michel, The Poetrcal
Romances of Tristan. . . . Composed in the xi.
and x11. Centuries (London, 1835-39), I, 215-240.
[27272.30*]
Cf. ed. J. Bédier, Les Deux Poémes de la Folie Tristan (S.A.T.F, 1907),
pp. 85-106. [(27273.68.4]
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 911
T.& F. Tandarois und Flordibel by Der Pleier. Names from
summary by E. H. Meyer, Zs. f. deutsches Altertum,
XII (1860-65), 470-514. Detailed references not
given. [Philol.495]
Cf. ed. F. Khull, Tandarets und Flordibel, Graz, 1885. [27278.66]
T.& G. The Turke and Gowin, ed. Sir F. Madden, Sir Ga-
wayne, A Collection of Ancient Romance-Poems (Lon-
don, 1839), pp. 243-255. [Br.8012.10.61*]
Cf. ed. J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript
(London, 1867-68), I, 90-102. [25247.3]
T.& I. Tristrams Saga ok Isondar, ed. E. Kiélbing, Die nord-
tsche und die englische Version der Tristan-Saga
(Heilbronn, 1878), I, 5-112. Cited by chapter.
[27273.70]
Tan. Le Roman de Tristan by Thomas (Douce MS.), ed.
F. Michel, The Poetical Romances of Tristan. . . .
Composed in the xu. and xi. Centuries (London,
1835-39), II, 1-85. Cited by page. [27272.30*]
Cf. ed. J. Bédier, S.A.T.F., Paris, 1902-05. 2 vols. [27272.81]. Michel
Il, 1-85 = Bédier I, 844-414.
Tav. La Tavola Ritonda o l'Istoria di Tristano, ed.
Filippo-Luigi Polidom, Bologna, 1864-65. 2 vols.
Cited by page. [27273.69.8]
Tit. Der jiingere Titurel, ed. K. A. Hahn, Bibl. d. gesamm-
ten deutsch. National-Lit. (Quedlinburg and Leip-
zig, 1842), Vol. XXIV. Cited by stanza. [46586.54]
For a critical text (with additional stanzas) of much of the “Grail-Temple
episode’’ (ed. cit., stanzas 319-559), cf. F. Zarnke, Abhandl. d. kgl.
sdchsisch. Gesells. d. Wissenschaft, phil.-hist. K]., VII (1876), $75 ff.
{L.Soc.1726.7]
Torec Roman van Torec, ed. Jan te Winkel, Leyden, 1875.
Cf. “L. du L.(D).,” ed. cit., Tweede Deel, pp. 157-88, where “ Torec’”’
= “TL. du L.(D).,” Book III, vv. 28127-26980. Cf. Histoire Litt. de
la France, XXX, 268 ff. [87531.2]
Tr.& Lan. Tristano e Lancielotto, ed. Pio Rajna, Curionta Let-
terarie (Bologna, 1873), CX XXV, 46-64. Cited by
stanza. [Ital.6320.135]
212
Tr.Fr.
Tr.S.
Trev.
Triads
Trin.
Tris.
Tris.R.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
Fragment einer Tristandichtung, ed. H. Lambel,
Germania, XXVI (1881), 356-361. [Philol.502]
Romance de Don Tristan by Alonso de Salayo, ed.
F. Michel, The Poetical Romances of Tristan. . . .
Composed in the xii. and xiii. Centuries (London,
1835-39), II, 298-302. Cited by page. [27272.30*]
Note. On this ballad see Michel, op. cit., I, xciv, note 40; also and
especially A. Bonilla y San Martin, Ltbro del esforcado cauallero Don
Tristan de Leonts ((Soc. de bibliédfilos madril., No. 6], Madrid, 1912),
p. $94, note 1. [Span.4240.6]
Polychronicon Ranulpht Higden Monachi Cestrensis;
together with the English translations of John Trevisa
and of an unknown writer of the Fifteenth Century
(9 vols.), Rolls Ser., XLI (1865-86), i, 394-431;
v, 329-339. [Br.98.41]
Triads of Arthur and his Warriors, ed. and transl.
W. F. Skene, Four Ancient Books of Wales (Edin-
burgh, 1868), IT,457-465. Cited by page. [Celt.4250.5]
[‘O WpéoBus ‘Iaxxérns], Poema Graecum de rebus gestis
regis Arturt, Tristani, Lanceloti, Galbani, Palamedis
Alvorumque Equitum Tabulae Rotundae (Middle-
Greek text and Latin trans.), ed. F. Michel, The
Poetical Romances of Tristan. . . . Composed in the
zu. and x1. Centuries (London, 1835-39), IT (Ap-
pendix), 269-297. [27272.30*]
Cf. ‘O IpéoBus ‘Iaaérns — Ein griechisches Gedicht (Middle-Greek
text with German transl.), ed. A. Ellissen, Versuch einer Polyglotte der
europ. Poesie (Leipzig, 1846), Vol. I, Nachtrag. [Lit. 1508.46]
Sir Tristrem, ed. E. Kolbing, Die nordische und die
englische Version der Tristan-Saga (Heilbronn, 1882),
II, 3-90. [27273.70]
Cf. ed. G. P. McNeill, Scot. Text Soc., Orig. Ser., No. 1, 1885-86.
(11495.18]
Il Tristano Riccardiano, ed. E. G. Parodi, Bologna,
1896. Cited by page. [27273.69.5]
Trtn.
Tsn.
Ttn.
Tyolet
Tys.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index 213
De Tristan. Extrait [= vv. 453-674] du ““Donnez des
Amanz,” ed. F. Michel, The Poetical Romances of
Tristan. . . . Composed in the xu. and x11. Centuries
(London, IT, 149-157). Cited by page. [27272.30*]
Cf. ed. G. Paris, “‘Ze Donnet des Amants,” Romania, XXV (1896),
500-22. [Philol.$65]
Le Roman de Tristan . . . analyse critique, by O. E.
L¢seth, Bibl. de l’ Ecole des Hautes Etudes (Paris,
1891), Vol. LXX XII. Cited by paragraph except
where page (p.) is especially indicated. [27273.69.4]
Cf. ‘“‘Table analytique des noms propres,”’ pp. [493]-542.
Tristan (five fragments), ed. F. Michel, The Poetical
Romances of Tristan. . . . Composed in the zit. and
2117. Centuries (London, 1835-39), III, 3-94. Cited
by page. ([27272.30*]
Frag. I (Sneyd MS.) = “Tan.” (ed. Bédier), I,
261-99, vv. 53-940 (S')
Frag. II (Sneyd MS.) = “Tan.” (ed. Bédier), I,
885-417, vv. 2319-3144 (S?)
Frag. ITI (Strassburg MS.) = “Tan.” (ed. Bédier),
I, 332-35, vv. 1197-1264 (Str')
Frag. IV (Strassburg MS.) = “Tan.” (ed. Bédier),
I, 353, vv. 1489-94 and I, 357-60, vv. 1615-88 (Str?)
Frag. V (Strassburg MS.) = “Tan.” (ed. Bédier),
I, 365-68, vv. 1785-1854 (Str*) |
De Tristran (Douce MS.), ed. F. Michel, The Poeti-
cal Romances of Tristan. . . . Composed in the xit.
and xii. Centurves (London, 1835-39), IT, 89-137.
Cited by page. [27272.30*] |
Cf. ed. J. Bédier, Les Deux Poemes de la Folie Tristan (S.A.T.F., 1907),
pp. 15-54. [27273.68.4]
Tyolet, ed. G. Paris, Romania, VIII (1879), 41-50.
[Philol.365]
Brut Tysylio in Gottfried’s von Monmouth Historia
Regum Britanniae ... und Brut Tysylio, ed. San-
Marte (i.e. Albert Schulz), Halle, 1854. Names
214
ULF.
U.T.
U.Z.
V.di M.
V.Kron
V.Mer.
V.Saga
Vita
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
excerpted from San-Marte’s notes to the Latin text
(ed. cit., pp. 179-471). The Welsh names are equated
with the corresponding Latin forms, q.v. See
ed. cit., p. xlvu for San-Marte’s abbreviations.
[Br.1005.44]
For Welsh text, cf. Myvyrtan Archaiology of Wales (2d ed., Denbigh,
1870), pp. 484-75 and pp. 555-99 (notes). [Celt.4313.6]
Lanzelot (prose) by Ulrich Fiieterer, ed. A. Peter,
Bibl. d. litterar. Vereins (Tiibingen, 1885), Vol.
CLXXV. Cited by page. [27271.4]
Tristan und Isolt by Ulrich von Tiirheim, ed. H. F.
Massmann, Dichtungen des deutschen Mittelalters
(Leipzig, 1843), III, 498-590. [46574.8]
Lanzelet by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, ed. K. A. Hahn,
Frankfurt-am-Main, 1845. [27271.7]
Di Vita di Merlino, ed. G. Ulrich, Zs. f. roman.
Philol., XX VII (1903), 173-185. Detailed references
not given. [Philol.375]
Das Vasnachtspil mit der Kron, ed. H. A. von Keller,
Fastnachtspiele aus d. 15. Jahrh., Bibl. d. litterar.
Vereins (Stuttgart, 1853), Part ii, 654-663. Cited
by page. [47512.55]
Vita Meriadoci, ed. J. D. Bruce, Publ. Mod. Lang.
Assn., XV (1900), 339-397. [Philol.340]
Cf. rev. ed. J. D. Bruce, Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuants
(Gottingen and Baltimore, 1913), pp. 1-54. [27273.90]
Valvers pdttr, ed. E. Kélbing, Riddaraségur (Strass-
burg and London, 1872), pp. 57-71. Cited by page.
[27266.27]
Galfridi de Monemuta Vita Merlini, ed. F. Michel
and T. Wright, Paris, 1837. Cited by page.
[27271.12]
Cf. ed. J. J. Parry, University of Illinois Studies in Language and [tter-
ature, Vol. X, No. 8, Urbana (IIl.), 1925. [Philol.$44.7]
Vulg.
W.C.
W.of G.
Wace
Wig.
Wigam.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index Q15
Le Roman de Merlin (Vulgate), ed. H. O. Sommer
and privately printed for subscribers, London, 1894.
Cited by page. [27271.10.2]
Cf. ed. from different MSS, H. O. Sommer, “‘ Lestotre de Merlin” in The
Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances (Washington, D. C., 1909-
16), Vol. II. [27271.1.5F]
Parzwal by Claus Wisse and Philipp Colin, ed. K.
Schorbach, Elsissische Literaturdenkmiler aus dem
XIV.-XVII. Jahrh. .. . 5.Bd., Strassburg, 1888.
Cited by column. ([(27271.15d]
The Weddynge of S’ Gawen and Dame Ragnell, ed.
Sir F. Madden, Sir Gawayne, A Collection of Ancient
Romance-Poems (London, 1839), pp. 298-298".
[Br.8012.10.61*]
Cf. ed. Laura Sumner, Smtth College Studies in Modern Languages
(Northampton, Mass.), Vol. V, No. 4 (July, 1924). [Philol.8$5.10]
Le Roman de Brut, ed. A. J. V. LeRoux de Lincy,
Rouen, 1836. 2 vols. [37597.15]
Roman van Walewein, ed. W. J. A. Jonckbloet, Wer-
ken uitgegeven door de Vereeniging ter bevordering
der Oude-Nederlandsche Letterkunde, Vol. II,
(Leyden, 1846-48). [27273.25]
Der Wartburgkrieg, ed. K. Simrock, Stuttgart and
Augsburg, 1858. Cited by section. [46583.32]
Wigalors, ed. F. Pfeiffer, Dichtungen des deutschen
Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1847), Vol. VI. Cited by
column. [46574.10]. Occasional use is made of En
smuk lystig Historie, om den bergmmelige Ridder og
Helt Hr. Viegoleis med Guld-Hjulet, Copenhagen, N.D.
(a chapbook of 80 pp.). Cited by page, and names
put in parentheses after corresponding names from
Wigalots. [27266.23]
Wigamur (Wolfenbiittel MS.), ed. F. H. von der
Hagen and J. G. Biisching, Deutsche Gedichte des
Mittelalters (Berlin, 1808), Vol. I (third item in vol.).
[28281.10.2]
For editions of other MSS (frags.), see E. Jenisch, Vorarbeiten su einer
kritischen Ausgabe des Wigamur (Kinigsberg diss., 1918). [272738.$9.15]
216
Wolf.
Wolf.391-420.
Y.&G.
Ysaye
Yvn.
Onomasticon Arthurianum — Index
Parzival by Wolfram von Eschenbach, ed. K. Lach-
mann, 5th ed., Berlin, 1891. Cited by page. [Ger-
man Library]
Cf. ed. E. Martin, Parstval und Titurel, Germanistische Handbiblothek,
Bd. IX, Halle, 1900. [27271.15.4]
Titurel, ed. K. Lachmann, Parzival (5th ed., Berlin,
1891), pp.391-420. Cited by page. [German Library]
Cf.ed E. Martin, Parzival und Titurel, Germanistische Handbibliothek,
Bd. IX (Halle, 1900): Titurel, pp. 297-315. [27271.18.4]
Ywaine and Gawin, ed. J. Ritson, Ancient Engleish
Metrical Romanceés (London, 1802), I, 1-169.
[2726424]
Cf. ed. G. Schleich, Oppeln and Leipzig, 1887. [27273.28]
Ysaye [Isaie] le Triste. Inedited. Names from
‘summary by J. Leidler, Zs. f. roman. Philol., XXV
(1901), 175-214, 472-89, 641-68. Cited by para-
graph. [Philol.375]
For MSS and early printed edition, see G. Paris, Romania, XXIII
(1894), 85, note 2. [Philol.$65]
Yvain by Chrétien de Troyes, ed. W. Forster, Halle,
1891. [37595.36.3]
Cf. 4th ed., Halle, 1912. [87595.86.52]
NOTES
EXPOSITION DU MOYEN AGE
A stRrIKING proof of the revival of interest in mediaeval culture, exemplified
by SpEcuLuM itself, was furnished in Paris by the Exposition du Moyen
Age (Manuscrits - Estampes-Médailles et Objets d’Art-Imprimés) at the
Bibliothéque Nationale, January 28 to March 7, 1926. The exhibition was
to close on the 28th of February, but the management was induced to add
a week. Day after day the public fairly fought its way into the small room
which housed so many of the priceless treasures of France. Busy men and
women, whose special work is far removed from anything which touches
the Middle Ages, made repeated efforts to discover a time of day when the
room did not resemble a bargain counter at the Bon Marché.
The last day of the exhibition was a Sunday. Long before half-past
nine in the morning the massive doors of the Bibliothéque Nationale on the
rue de Richelieu were besieged by an eager crowd. Ten minutes after the
opening all the show cases were lined with two or three rows of humanity
which jostled, good-naturedly but resolutely, for a last glimpse of beautiful
books which were produced in the hush of mediaeval scriptoria. All the
world knows that life in Paris extends far into the night, especially into the
night between Saturday and Sunday. Here half-past nine on Sunday
morning is comparable with the lecture hour of Pomponius Laetus, who,
lantern in hand, descended from his home on the Esquiline to the place
where sleepless devotees gathered before dawn to hear his lectures on Ro-
man authors in the flush of the revival of classical Latin and Greek learn-
ing. The “Exposition du Moyen Age” leaves little room to doubt that we
are on the threshold of a renaissance of interest in mediaeval learning.
A Catalogue de exposition du moyen dge, Bibliotheque Nationale, jan-
vier-février, 1926 (Paris, Editions de la Gazette des Beaux-arts, 106 Boule-
vard Saint-Germain, 1926) gives a description of the $388 books and articles
exhibited, with 21 handsome plates. The chief feature of the exhibition
was an historical presentation of illuminated manuscripts. One whole case
was devoted to Byzantine treasures, of which the oldest, the Codex Sino-
pensis, containing the gospel of St Matthew, goes back to the time of Jus-
tinian and is adorned with some of the earliest illustrations of scenes from
the New Testament. The oldest illuminated Latin book was the Ashburn-
ham Pentateuch, originally treasured at Tours, which was written probably
in the seventh century. The two oldest manuscripts of the Historia Fran-
corum of Gregory of Tours, both of the seventh century, one in uncial and
the other in Merovingian cursive, held their share of interest even in the
midst of a riot of the most marvellously illuminated books. The same was
217
218 Notes
true of the precious unique copy of Nithard’s history, opened at fol. 18 to
show the Oaths of Strassburg. Equally attractive were the procés-verbauz
of depositions made by the Templars of Paris in 1809-1311; and of the
proces of the condemnation of Joan of Arc.
It was almost bewildering to have in view in one room, and interspersed
with dozens of other attractions of highest merit, such treasures as the
Carolingian copy of the comedies of Terence, the Psalter of St Louis and
that of St Louis and of Blanche of Castille, which belongs to the Biblio-
théque de I’Arsenal, the Buble moralisée with its 5000 pictures (of which the
Pierpont Morgan collection boasts a small fragment), the Breviary of
Belleville, the Hours of Anjou, the Psalter and the Hours of the Duc de
Berry, the Hours of Marguerite d’Orléans, of Nevill, of Rohan, and of
Louis de Laval. The famous copy of de Viris Illustribus was opened to
show the well-known portrait of Petrarch.
As was to be expected, illuminated manuscripts written in French were
well represented. First and foremost, the oldest manuscript of Joinville’s
Histoire de Saint-Louis, the celebrated thirteenth-century Chronique de
France of Primat, which is the pride of the Bibliothéque Sainte-Geneviéve,
the Vie et Miracles de Saint-Denis, with its valuable pictures representing
Parisian life in the fourteenth century, the best copy of the Livre de la
Chasse of Gaston Phcebus, Count of Foix, the Livre des Merveilles by Marco
Polo, the Miracles de Notre-Dame, translated by Jean Miélot, the Anti-
quités Judaiques of Josephus, written for the Duc de Berry, opened to show
the astounding ‘‘Capture of Jericho,” and the sumptuous Cité de Dieu of
St Augustine, translated by Raoul de Presles.
The marvels of mediaeval bindings were presented chiefly by books
which emanated from St Denis, Metz, and the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris.
A special effort was made to portray French engravings of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, and there was a fair representation of incunabula,
portolani, cameos, ivories, coins, medals, and seals.
Among the antiquities, the visitors bestowed most of their attention on
the sword of Childeric I, the bronze curule chair called the throne of Dago-
bert, the silver platter of Gelimer, last king of the Vandals, and on a set of
sixteen large chessmen of the twelfth century.
An important memento of this remarkable exhibit is in course of pub-
lication by Camille Couderc: Les enluminures des manuscrits du moyen dge
(du VI* au XV* sidcle): exposition de la Bibliotheque nationale (Paris, Edi-
tions de la Gazette des Beaux-arts, 106 Boulevard Saint-Germain, 1926),
in 4°, 120 pages de texte et 80 planches en héliotypie, 375 francs.
Louis JoHN PaEtow,
‘March 7, 1926. Paris, France.
Notes 219
THE ARABIC BIBLE IN SPAIN!
THERE are Jewish versions of the Old Testament in Arabic, of which the
most famous is the translation by Saadia Gaon (892 ?-942). The Christian-
Arabic literature which we know to-day does not go beyond the eighth
century A.D. From the cloister of St Saba near Jerusalem and from that
of St Catherine on Mt Sinai we have important manuscripts dating from
the eighth to the tenth centuries, which contain fragments of Scripture,
lives of saints, ascetic, apocryphal, and apologetic writings.
Graf (op. cit., below in fn. 1) gives an excellent treatment of these
Christian-Arabic writings which were composed in Palestine and the Syriac-
speaking territory. He informs us that we have no Arabic-Christian works
from Egypt that antedate the tenth and eleventh centuries; the Copts, as
is known, were favoured by their Arab conquerors and clung tenaciously
to their vernacular.
It is of particular interest that Arabic literary activity began in Spain
at an early date. Graf notes a version made from the Latin by Isaak
Velasquez of Cordoba, who in 946 a.p. translated Luke (and presumably
the other three Gospels) into Arabic. Cod. Monac. ar. 288 (or. 41), con-
taining this version of the four Gospels, an excerpt from Eusebius, and the
pericopes for the whole Church year including the feast days, was copied
in 1894 and is based upon two manuscripts which were written by Ibrahtm
b. Chair in Fez in 1145. Cod. Monac. ar. 234 (or. 40), from the hand of a
Moslem scribe in 1492, contains the Pentateuch and the above version of
the four Gospels; this manuscript was intended by the copyist to be used
as propaganda to expose the fallacies of the Jewish and Christjan religions
and to glorify Islam. Graf observes that the latter edition of the Penta-
teuch is based on a Syriac recension (in the Arabic), while the Spanish-
Arabic version of the Gospels found its way to the Orient, where it was
finally discovered by Tischendorf. This is a fine example of the remarkable
1 BIBLIOGRAPHY
H.S. Gehman, “‘ The ‘ Polyglot’ Arabic Text of Daniel and its Affinities,” Journal of Biblical
Literature, XLIV (1925), 8327-352.
Georg Graf, Die Christlich-Arabische Literatur bis sur frankischen Zeit, Strassburger Theo-
logische Studien, VII, i, Freiburg i. Br., 1905.
H. Hyvernat, “‘Arabes (Versions),” in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible.
E. Nestle, “Arabische Bibellibersetzungen,” Realencyklopddie fiir Protestantische Theologie
und Kirche (8. Aufl.), III, 90-95.
J. F. Rhode, The Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch in the Church of Egypt, Diss., Catholic
University of America, 1921.
B. Walton, “De Lingua Arabica et Scripturae Versionibus Arabicis,” Proleg. XIV,
Biblia Polyglotta (London, 1657), I, 98-97.
220 Notes
literary intercourse which existed between the various parts of the Arabic-
speaking world.
In the course of his study of the ‘Polyglot’ Arabic text of the book of
Daniel, the writer came across a passage in Walton (op. cit. in fn. 1) in
which mention is made of an earlier translation of the Bible into Arabic
in Spain. Walton records that there was an Arabic version of the Scriptures
prepared by Johannes Episcopus Seviliensis in 719 and cites as his authori-
ties the Spanish Chronicle and Padre Juan de Mariana.!_ The date given
by Walton, however, needs correction; it is also important that we have
the references to this translation in a form that is accessible to modern
scholars. According to the Spanish Chronicle,’ this translation was made
in the reign of Don Pelayo, the first year of whose reign was 719 A.D. and
99 (sic) according to the Mohammedan reckoning.’
It appears that the rendering was made between the end of the fourth
and the sixth year of his reign. The chronicler, after mentioning the close
of four years of his rule, says that he has nothing important to record for
the fifth year,‘ and in the course of his narrative he comes to the transla-
tion of the Bible into Arabic. Shortly after this he mentions the conclusion
of six years of the reign of Don Pelayo. It seems, therefore, reasonable to
assume that this Arabic recension > of the Bible was made in 724 A.D.
Padre Juan de Mariana (1537-1624), Historia General de Espaiia, VII, 3,
also says *® that John, Bishop of Seville, translated the Bible into Arabic
1 Praeter has aliam etiam versionem Scripturae Arabicam memorant, a Johanne Episc.
Seviliensi in Hispania factam anno Christi 719 de qua Vascus in Chron. Hispan. et Jo. Mariana
de rebus Hisp. 1. 7. c. 3. (op. cit. § 18).
2 R. Menendez Pidal, Primera Crénica General, Estoria de Espafta que mand6 componer
Alfonso el Sabio y se continuaba bajo Sancho IV en 1289. (Madrid 1906) Tomo I, sub “El
Rey Don Pelayo.”
3 El primero anno del su regnado fue en la era 757 quando andaua ell anno de la Encar-
nacion en 719, e el dell imperio de Leon en 6, e del papa Gregorio en 9, e el de Carlos rey de
Francia en 2, e el de Vlit rey de los alaraues en 11, e el de los alaraues en 99. He makes an
error of about a year in the Mohammedan reckoning.
4 Del quinto anno del regnado del rey don Pelayo non fallamos ninguna cosa que de
contar sea que a la estoria pertenesca si non tanto que murio Omar rey de los alaraues e finco
su hermano Yzid por rey et sennor del regno. ...
5 Op. cit., Tomo I, 326: En aquel tiempo otrossi fue en Seuilla el sancto obispo Johan,
omne de mui grand santidad et de buena uida et santa, que era llamado de los alaraues por
su arauigo Caet almatran; et era mui sabio en la lengua arauiga e fizo Dios por el muchos
miraglos; et traslado las santas escripturas en arauigo, et fizo las esposiciones dellas segund la
santa escriptura, et assi las dexo despues a su muerte pora los qui uiniessen despues del.
6 Contemporéneo dellos fué Juan, prelado de Sevilla, que tradujo la Biblia en lengua
arAbiga con intento de ayudar a los cristianos y a los moros, a causa que la lengua arfbiga se
usaba mucho y comunmente entre todos; la latina ordinariamente ni se usaba ni se sabfa.
Hay algunos traslados desta traduccién, que se han conservado hasta nuestra edad, y se
ven en algunos lugares de Espafia.
ae oe, |
ad CC _———e mh 8 =
Notes 22)
with the intention of helping the Christians and the Moors, since Arabic
was widely and commonly used by all. Juan de Mariana makes the inter-
esting statement that copies of this translation were preserved until his
day and seen in some parts of Spain.
This literary reference throws light upon the extraordinary rapidity
with which Arabic was understood and adopted by the Spaniards. It is
a marvel with what rapidity Arabic was adopted in the conquered terri-
tories; in fact it seems to have spread like wild-fire. It has not been gener-
ally known that the language of the Koran, in a few years after the conquest
of Spain, was widely used in that land by both Moors and Christians. For
this reason this note should be published with a view to stimulating research
in the relations that existed between the two races, languages, and religions,
in the Iberian peninsula. This translation not only marks an important
step in the history of biblical versions, but it also reveals the fact that this
language has a certain inherent (shall we call it mysterious or intriguing?)
spirit which has appealed to all nations with whom it has come into con-
tact. If some of the Christians of Spain used this version of the Scriptures
only thirteen years after the conquest, we need not be surprised that this
tongue has become the lingua franca of the East.
Henry S. GEHMAN,
University of Pennsylvania.
A FURTHER NOTE ON A NOTE
In his note on “Public Readings of New Works in Mediaeval Universities”
in the preceding number of SpecuLum, pp. 101-103,! Professor Thorndike
overlooks an earlier and more celebrated example, the description given
by Giraldus Cambrensis, otherwise known to readers of the same number,
of the public reading of his Topographia Hibernica at Oxford ca. 1188.
The purpose is stated to have been the author’s desire not to hide his light
under a bushel (as if Giraldus ever did!); the reading occupied three suc-
cessive days and was accompanied by lavish entertainment of masters and
scholars at his hostel. See Giraldus, Opera, 1, 72-73, 409; III, 92; V, 8;
also Rashdall, Universities of the Middle Ages, II, 341. The parallel is
interesting in another respect: Professor Thorndike appears to argue that
history was taught at the University of Padua since Rolandinus read an
historical treatise there in 1262; would he infer from the case of Giraldus
that geography, to name only the main theme of the Topographia, was
taught at Oxford in the twelfth century?
CuHarLEs H. Hasxrys,
Harvard University.
1 For MSS of Lawrence of Aquileia other than the one there mentioned, see my note in
American Historical Review, III (1898), 208.
222 Notes
CHAUCER IN ERROR!
In her helpful volume on Vergil and the English Poets (Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1919), Miss Elizabeth Nitchie points out, in accordance with
what is apparently the general opinion, an “actual mistake” in Chaucer’s
Hous of Fame, where the poet (v. 174 ff.) makes two different persons
of Ascanius and Iulus. Such a mistake, she declares (p. 48), “is not
remarkable in the Middle Ages.” The Middle Ages, we know, were a
period of black ignorance and natve confusions. Miss Nitchie describes
three other mistakes in the same poem, which “indicate that Chaucer
was not yet thoroughly at home with his original.” I select one of these
indictments.
“In relating the events connected with the stilling of the storm off the
coast of Carthage,’”’ she declares, “he confuses the order of the incidents.
He says that there was a picture representing Venus imploring Jupiter to
save Aeneas’s fleet, and that he saw
Joves Venus kisse,
And graunted of the tempest lisse.
But in Virgil, the quieting of the storm is due to Neptune, and after her son
has landed on the African shore, Venus, motivated by her fear for his safety
in Carthage, appeals to Jupiter for his aid.”
Verily this is a grievous error. However, we are glad to learn that the
Legend of Dido “shows a marked improvement in the matter of accuracy in
following the original.”” However, an antecedent question is, to what extent
did Chaucer mean to follow the original? In general, it is plain, that for
his wall-pictures in the palace, he transforms, to quote Professor Kit-
tredge’s happy phrase,” the ‘epic of Rome’ into the ‘epic of Venus.’ He
shortens, expands, selects, to suit his purpose. In the new design, Neptune
may well yield to Venus in the scene just described; the poet is putting in
a background of harmonious shades.
The first-mentioned “‘error”’ is of another sort. It is possibly no error
at all. The poet declares (vv. 174 ff.):
And I saw next, in all this fere,
How Creusa, daun Eneas wyf,
Which that he lovede as his lyf,
And hir yonge sone Iulo,
And eek Ascanius also,
Fledden eek with drery chere,
That it was pitee for to here.
1 I am grateful to my co-editor, Dr F. P. Magoun, for information and advice kindly
offered during the preparation of this note. He should not be held responsible, however, for
any of its indiscretions.
2 Chaucer and his Poetry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915), p. 78.
Notes 223
This looks as if Creusa had two sons, Iulus and Ascanius, and though
just below (v. 192) we find Creusa imploring her husband to keep good care
of “‘hir sone” — one, not two— Chaucer apparently had two in mind
when he wrote the preceding lines. We have no authority, as Skeat com-
ments,! for accepting Koch’s proposed emendation ‘That hight’ for ‘And
eek’ (v. 178) and for taking the line in the sense “who likewise was called
Ascanius.” Chaucer can be egregiously careless on occasion,” and the Hous
of Fame was not touched by the finishing hand. Let us admit, then, that
although only one son is mentioned in v. 192, the poet had just been think-
ing of Iulus and Ascanius as different persons.
For all that, Chaucer’s error is not so startling as it has been made to
appear. The double personality of Ascanius confronts us elsewhere in the
Middle Ages. We note it in the Irish Aeneid, whenever that curious docu-
ment was written. Now whoever thus treated Ascanius knew not only
Virgil but the sources with which Virgil worked. Livy tells us in a familiar
passage (i, $, 2), which strangely enough has not been cited, so far as I am
aware, in the present connection, that there was considerable uncertainty
about the parentage of Ascanius, and his number. Livy’s words are:
Haud ambigam — quis enim rem tam veterem pro certo affrmet?— hicine fuerit
Ascanius an maior quam hic, Creusa matre Ilio incolumi natus comesque inde
paternae fugae, quem Iulum eundem Iulia gens auctorem nominis sui nuncupat.
Livy’s history —the first book, at any rate— was widely read in the Middle
Ages. Jean de Meung before Chaucer, and Dante after him, had often turned
those “‘pictured pages,” and before 1341 the Dominican Pierre Bersuire
had translated Livy into French.‘ It was also a time when Virgil’s lines
were perused with the help of Servius. The following note (on Aeneid., i, 7)
in the ancient commentator is to the point:
‘“‘ALBANIQUE Patres: Albam ab Ascanio conditam constat, sed a quo incertum
est, utrum a Creusa an a Laviniae filio: de qua re etiam Livius dubitat.”
The reader of the Aeneid, with Servius, would thus at the very start be
apprized of the twofold tradition and also be referred to Livy. He would
later (on Aeneid, vi, 760) find Servius rather tortuously endeavoring to
1 The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (Oxford, 1894), I1I, 250, note to v. 177.
2 E.g., the Shipman's ‘The sely housbond . .. most us clothe’ (C. 7., B 1201-02) and the
Second Nun’s ‘I, unworthy sone of Eve’ (C. 7., G 62)!
3 Imtheachta Aentasa. The Irish Aeneid, ed. Rev. G. Calder (Irish Texts Soc., Vol. VI,
London, 1907), p. 200, ll. 3211-12. 7 faztdk Lauina la h-Ascan...7 berid Lautna mac do Ascan
t. Ilus a ainm sidhe. ‘And Lavinia married Ascanius .. . and Lavinia bore a son to Ascanius,
i.e., Iulus [was] his name.’
4 J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship (Cambridge, The University Press),
I (d ed.), 660.
224 Notes
reconcile the two accounts. No lack of information was at the disposal of
the mediaeval reader.
We thus have a glimpse of the historva which Virgil fitted to his plan.
Writers like Chaucer and the author of the Irish Aeneid did not misinter-
pret; they reverted to the pre-Virgilian tradition, with which they were
more familiar than some modern scholars seem to be. Livy’s opening
chapters present in outline a very different story of Troy from that which
readers of the Aeneid know. From Servius in particular, we are made
aware of the tangled mass of fact and fancy from which the poet chose
unerringly what suited his design. Mediaeval authors turned to that matter,
as to Virgil himself, with precisely the same motive.
In a comment on the meaning of the name Iulus (Aen., i, 267), Servius
remarks that Virgil had here abandoned the accepted account: Ab hac
autem historia ita discedit Vergilius, ut aliquibus locis ostendat non se per ig-
norantiam sed per artem poeticam hoc fecisse. These words might be remem-
bered to-day by some interpreters of Chaucer. Instead of patronizing his
ignorance, it behooves us to understand his adaptations. In the present
case, I am afraid, he started off with an infelicity. His remembrance of the
pre-Virgilian account almost wrought havoc with his story of the hero’s
departure from Troy with two sons clinging to his hand. But the poet im-
mediately recovered himself, and presumably would have eliminated his
mistake had he revised his work. The mistake, in any event, was due not
to ignorance, but to too much information.
Among the bearers of the tale of Troy in Chaucer’s hall of Fame (Hous
of Fame, vv. 1455 ff.), we see Homer
And with him Dares and Tytus
Before, and eek he Lollius,
And Guido de Columpnis,
And English Gaufride eek, y-wis.
“Tytus’ has generally been reckoned a misspelling of Dictys. With Dares
preceding, this interpretation is plausible enough, especially as Homer,
Dares, and Dictys are grouped together in Trozus, 1, 146 (Dyte: write).
In view, however, of Livy’s importance in the matter of Troy, and of
Chaucer’s obvious acquaintance with Livy as elsewhere shown, it is at least
possible that Tytus means Livy, called Tytus (Titus) Livius in the Book of
the Duchess (v. 1084) and in other places.!_ As Chaucer composed the verse,
intending something like that which appears in Troilus, he may have sud-
denly switched from Dyte to Tytus, under that fate of poets, the compulsion
of rhyme. It would seem natural to suppose — though I know I am tread-
ing dangerous ground — that this passage, at least, in the Hous of Fame,
1¢.T.,C 1; Legend of Good Women, vv. 280a, 1683, 1878.
Notes 295
was written after Trowdus. If so, then Chaucer pens these verses with a quiet
smile as he knowingly registers Lollius among the authorities. And when
he adds:
And English Gaufride eek, y-wis
one can think, after Trowdus, of a Geoffrey much more deserving of mention
here than Geoffrey of Monmouth. a
E. K. Ranp,
Harvard University.
THE COMPILATION OF ST ALBANS AND THE OLD-
FRENCH PROSE ALEXANDER ROMANCE
Tue Old-French prose translation of the Historia de Preliis (J*-recension)
especially commends itself to students of the mediaeval Alexander legend
in that the author has adorned his translation of the romance by the ad-
dition of a prologue and an epilogue based on historical sources.! The
editor of the French and Latin texts of the J?-recension of the Historia de
Preliis, Professor Alfons Hilka, surmises (ed. cit., p. xviii) that the source
of the Prologue and Epilogue is a Latin work closely resembling the so-
called Compilation of St Albans; the present note attempts to show that
Professor Hilka’s conjecture is correct, at least in so far as the Prologue is
concerned.
The Compilation of St Albans, whose history and contents were discussed
long since by Paul Meyer,’ exists in at least two MSS: one, Corpus Christi
College MS. 219, is of the twelfth century,’ another, Gonville and Caius
MS. 154, of the twelfth-thirteenth century.‘ Neither MS. has been pub-
lished, but through the courtesy of the respective Cambridge college au-
thorities I have been able to secure rotographs of the first eleven folios of
each MS.— more than enough for a study of the source of the Old-French
Prologue.
1 A. Hilka, Der altfr. Prosa- Alecanderroman nebst d. lat. Original d. Historia de Prelits
(Rezension J*), Halle a/S., 1920. For the text of the Prologue, see ed. cit., pp. 1-6; of the
Epilogue, pp. 261-268.
2 Alexandre le Grand dans la Littérature Francaise du Moyen Age (Paris, 1886), II, 52 ff.
3 M.R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in Corpus Christs College (Cambridge,
1912), I, 517.
4 Idem, A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in Gonville and Caius College (Cambridge,
1907), I, 179. I am grateful to Professor G. L. Hamilton of Cornell University for a reference
to the fifteenth-century Sloane MS. 289 (cf. E. L. J. Scott, Index to the Sloane MSS in the
British Museum, p. 10) and regret that at the time of writing I have been unable to investigate
his suggestion that this MS. may be related to the Compilation of St Albans. When compared
with the incipit of the Compilation, the incipit of the Sloane MS., “Res Gestae ex Trogo Pom-
peto alitsque auctoribus,” lends plausibility to the thought that this may be an abridgement
of the Compilation.
226 Notes
As correctly described by Meyer, the Compilation of St Albans is a cento
of passages from a number of authors, who, in one part or another of their
writings, have had occasion to treat of Alexander the Great. The incipit of
Gonville and Caius MS. 154} indicates the general character of the work:
Incipit hystoria regis Macedonum Philippi filiique eius Alexandri Magni ex-
cepta de libris Pompeii Trogi, Orosii, Iosephi, Ieronimi, Solini, Augustini, Bede,
et Ysidori (fol. Ir).
The source of many passages is indicated in the margin of the MS., though
the references are only to the author (never to title or book) and are neither
altogether complete nor always accurate. In the first eleven folios there is
virtually no original composition — save for a few trifling transitional
phrases — and the author appears to have been content with weaving to-
gether excerpts, in the main from Justin’s Epiiome of the lost books of Pom-
peius Trogus and from Orosius’s Historiae adversum Paganos, with oc-
casional snatches from the Etymologiae and Chronicon of St Isidore, from
de Temporum Ratione of Bede, and from St Jerome’s Epistola ad Laetam and
his Commentaria in Danitelem Prophetam. Justin’s Epitome is certainly the
basis of the early part of the narrative — probably of the rest also; other
authorities, especially Orosius, are drawn upon to furnish additional in-
teresting details.
In general the compiler had access to texts whose readings, as they ap-
pear in the extant MSS of the Compilation, agree with the corresponding
passages in modern editions of the authors from which he drew. Hence the
reader will immediately recognize the difficulty in determining whether a
given quotation in a vernacular work be from the Compilation itself or from
the source upon which the compiler drew. The case is, however, not quite
hopeless. There are two criteria available for determining whether the ver-
nacular writer used the Compilation itself or whether he made direct use of
its sources. First, there is the order and extent of the excerpts found in the
Compilation: the chances are obviously very much against any two writers
hitting upon precisely the same selection and arrangement of authorities,
and an identity between two works in this respect would argue for the direct
obligation of one to the other. The second criterion is more curious. In the
Compilation there occur a number of proper names, the spelling of which is
so very singularly distorted that it is scarcely conceivable that two writers
1 Unless otherwise stated all quotations from the Compilation of St Albans are taken from
Gonville and Caius MS. 154, referred to for convenience as Compilation and cited by folio.
In the folios which I have examined, the differences between the text of the two MSS are few
and slight. For the present study the precise relation of these to one another is unim-
portant; it could not, indeed, be determined without an exhaustive examination of the MSS
themselves. From certain practical considerations I have, accordingly, printed from what
may be the later MS., but note the variants in Corpus Christi College MS. 219.
Notes 297
should arrive independently at the same — often bizarre — result. As it
happens, the Old-French Prologue is based on a part of the Compilation
where the compiler has drawn at considerable length on Justin,' borrowing
only once from Orosius; on the other hand, in this same part of the Com-
puation distorted spellings of proper names are numerous. These onomastic
peculiarities are strikingly reflected in the French, and I shall accordingly
begin with a consideration of this phenomenon.
As a further basis of comparison I may note that I have found consider-
able help in a MS. of the French text apparently somewhat earlier than the
one printed by Professor Hilka. Hilka printed from a Berlin MS.; ? I quote
from this and make supplementary use of Harleian MS. 4979 (late thir-
teenth or early fourteenth century), both for the variant spellings of the
proper names as well as for the fuller, more complete readings that it
furnishes for two passages in the Prologue. These variants, though slight,
merit publication quite apart from any question of source.* In the fol-
lowing I cite the Berlin MS. by page and line of Hilka’s edition (cited as
Hilka), Harleian MS. 4979 (cited Harl.) by folio.
The following proper names deserve especial attention:
Unidamius (Hilka, p. 2, 1. 7); compare here Unidanamum (Hilka, p. 2,
I]. 12, 18). For these Harl. (fol. 1v) has respectively Unidamuis and Mung-
danamin [i. e., Migdanamin]. The ultimate source is Justin, vii,1,11;4
““Pulso deinde Mida (nam is quoque quintam portionem Macedoniae tenuit)
aliisque regibus pulsis. . . .”” We are really concerned then with Midas,
predecessor of Caranus (Ceranus) mentioned below. As taken over by the
author of the Compilation (fol. 1v), the Justinian passage is curiously meta-
morphosed: “‘Pulso deinde Midanamis (qui quintam portionem Macedonie
tenuit) aliisque regibus pulsis. . . .”” In both MSS of the Compilation the
three words Mida nam is of Justin are written as one, with the change
of quogue to qui! All four French forms Unidamius, Unidamuis, Unt-
danamum, Mungdanamin very evidently go back to the Midanamis of the
Compilation, but it is perhaps impossible to determine the steps by which
the distortion proceeded. Did the French translator write in his holograph
Midanamis (acc. Midanamin), or was the M or Mi of the Latin misread Un
1 The extracts from Justin are not continuous, but owing to the character of the evidence
here adduced it would be superfluous to include an analysis of the items from Justin within
what I may be pardoned for describing loosely as the Justinian part of the Prologue.
2 Hilka, op. cit.,p.i (No. 2 in the list of MSS), and cf. p. iii where he declares his intention
“‘den Berliner Text miglichst getreu abzudrucken”’; the MS. is described, p. v, as “aus der
ersten Hilfte des 14. Jahrhunderts.”
3 MS. briefly described by Hilka, ed. ctt., p. i (No. 10 in the list of MSS); more fully by
H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances .. . in the British Museum, I, 127, 128. I have at
hand rotographs of fols. 1-5, containing the Prologue, but no more.
4 Ed. Fr. Ruhl (Leipzig: Teubner, 1915).
228 Notes
from the start?! Harl. Mungdanamin gives color to the former view; the
majority of Un-forms to the later. At all events the source is clear.
Argeoleon (Hilka, p. 2, 1. 16); Harl., fol. lv adem. The phrase in which
this name occurs goes back ultimately to Justin, vii, 2,2: ““Siquidem senex
mortens Argeo filio monstrauit locum, quo urbem condi uellet.”” Now Argeo-
lion is obviously a fusion of Argeo and filwo,? though not brought about by
the French translator; for this alteration had already taken place in the
Compilation (fol. lv): ‘“Siguidem senex moriens Argeonlion monstrauit locum,
quo condi uellet....”” It would seem that the writer of the Compilation had
had before him a copy of Justin in which the f in filio was defective, perhaps
with part of the vertical stroke faint or worn away. If this were the case,
the result of such an f plus 2 would be an n. In the copy of the Compilation
before the French translator, or in the translator’s holograph, this n may
well enough have been indicated by a macron (Argedleon), destined to be
ignored in later copies.
Passiminus (Hilka, p. 4, ll. 2-5). The passage and the phrase in which
this name appears are both important: ?
car .ili. ans demora illuec et aprist en cele chité anchienne a fere les premieres
de ses enfances en sa vie. Che nos sonne Passiminus que vaillans empereres fu et
sages philozophes.
Harl. (fol. Sr) shows here an important difference:
car .iii. ans demoura illuec & aprist en celle chite anchiene a faire les premiers de
s’enfanche en sa vie soune Passisininis ki vaillans empereres fu & sages philosophes.
As a footnote to the last sentence in the above quotation from the Berlin
text, Professor Hilka writes, “‘fehlt bet Justinus.” On the contrary, I find
in the Compilation (fol. 2r) the following Latin taken directly from Justin,
vii, 5, 3:
siquidem Thebis triennio obses habitus prima puericie rudimenta in urbe seueri-
tatis antique et in domo Epaminunde, summi et philosophi et imperatoris, deposuit.
I do not pretend to account in detail for the fanciful spellings (Passtminus,
Passisininis) of Epaminondas’s name, but as I understand the French,
Harl. gives us a close rendering of the Latin.‘ The reading of the Berlin MS.
is less happy. The scribe evidently took soune (soigne) “‘in the care of’’ to
1 Professor E. K. Rand suggests an intermediate stage midanamts as a possible source of
this error.
2 In a footnote to the passage in the French, Hilka calls attention to the reading in Justin
— but without comment.
3 Not, as will be seen, in demonstrating the relation of the French to the Compilation;
rather, in bringing the French into relation with Justin. The last sentence in the text of
Hilka has strayed far from the original!
4] take soune to be a variant of sotgne (sotgn) (as cited by Godefroi, sub “3. soigne’’),
meaning ‘‘au soin de”’ “‘care of”’ and translating ¢¢ tn domo.
Notes 229
be part of the verb sonner in the sense “to say” “‘to report”! and turned
the concluding phrase so as to mean: ‘“‘ Which (i. e., this fact) Epaminondas
tells us, who was a brave emperor and wise philosopher.’”’ According to the
Berlin MS., this makes a separate sentence, and is properly so punctuated
by Hilka.
Sarraba (Hilka, p. 5, ll. 19, 21) and Aruche (Hilka, p. 5, 1. 26). The
source of these two names, both referring to the same person, together with
one or two immediately relevant matters, is best brought out by a parallel
exhibition of the French text and the text of the Compilatwn:
Apres ce que tous ses aferes li fu si bien
venus, espousa il Olimpias la fille au roy
Neptolemi, signor des Molosiens, et
tout ce fist il par le conseil Sarraba qui
oncles estoit Olimpias de par son pere,
ki avoit prise a feme Doadain la seror
Olimpias. Et ceste choze fu ocoison a
Sarraba de tous maus, car chil Sarraba
esperoit par l’afde et par l’esperance de
Phelippe a conquester grant acroisse-
ment de son regne. Cil Phelippes |’en-
cacha de son regne tout maintenant, et
fu getés en exil et illeuques morut. Et
de ce dist Orosies que [quant] Phelipes
ot conquis les Atheniens et sousmis a
soy les Thesaliens, et icil Aruche, com
il quida eslargir son empire par l’alde de
Phelipe de Macedone, fu ausi decheis
et cachiés en exil et morut de viellece
(Hilka, p. 5, ll. 16-29).2
Quibus rebus feliciter peruenientibus,
Olimpiadem, Neoptolomi regis Molos-
sorum filiam, uxorem ducit, conciliante
nuptias fratre patrueli, auctore uirginis
Sarraba rege Molossorum, qui sororem
Olimpiadis Troadam in matrimonio
habebat; que causa illi exicilum ma-
lorumque omnium fuit. Nam dum
regni incrementa affinitare Philippi se
adquisiturum sperat, proprio regno ab
eodem priuatus in exilio consenuit. De
hoc ita Orosius. Igitur uictis Athe-
niensibus subiectisque Thessalis Olim-
piadem Aruche, regis Molossorum, so-
rorem duxit uxorem. Qui cum per hoc,
quod societatem Macedonum affinitate
regis pasiscebatur, Imperium suum se
dilaturum putaret, per hoc deceptus
amisit priuatusque in exilio consenuit
(Compilation, fol. $r).*
In the Compilation we have two accounts of the marriage of Philip to Olim-
pias, daughter of Neoptolomus, of which the first is taken from Justin, vii,
6, 10-12, the second from Orosius, iii, 12, 8. The facts of the two accounts
need no comment, though it may be noted in passing that the French re-
produces the arrangement of the Compilation even to including a transla-
tion of De hoc ita Orosius, which is rendered by De ce dist Orosies. This coin-
cidence alone would argue strongly in favor of interdependence of the two
documents, though it is the form of the proper names that pretty definitely
1 Cf. sonner, 4. ‘Dire’ . . . ‘rapporter,’ in La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Dictionnaire Hts-
torique del’ Ancien Langue Francois, Paris, 1881.
2 Hari. (fol. 4r) offers the following variants from Hilka: stres des Molosiens for signor des
Molosiens, Orasies for Orosies, and quant, which Hilka apparently supplies (from where?).
3 Corp. Chr. Coll. MS. 219 (fol. Sr) offers the following variants: eritium for exicitum;
omits Nam dum regni . . . ab eodem priuatus in exilio consenutt, which is added in the right-
hand margin by another hand; paciscebatur for pasiscebatur; and delaturum for dilaturum.
230 Notes
excludes all possibility of the French writer having gone independently to
Justin and Orosius. In the editions of Justin, the name of Olimpias’s cousin
and guardian is Arryba, while in the Compilation we find Sarraba which
gives in turn the Sarraba of the French. The initial S in the Compilation
evidently comes (by dittography) from the final s of the immediately pre-
ceding uirginis. In the corresponding passage in Orosius (included in the
Compilation) Arryba of Justin appears as Aruba. In the Compilation, Oro-
sius’s Aruba becomes Aruche (gen. sg.) and is thus passed on to the French
in the same form: Aruche.
The three names that follow I have reserved for discussion out of the
order in which they appear in the text. Taken at the beginning, or con-
sidered by themselves, these would not illustrate so convincingly as those
already treated the close relation which exists between the Old-French
text and the Latin Compilation, but in the light of what has now gone
before, they possess a certain confirmatory value and have, furthermore,
no little interest in and for themselves.
Osteron (Hilka, p.1, 1.15); Asteron (Harl. fol. Ir). The ultimate source
is Asteropae (Justin, vii, 1, 5) which turns up in the Compilation (fol. 1r)
as Asterorei. The French Asteron (Osteron) would seem to go back to *As-
teronei, a form more easily derived from the rez-spelling in the Compilation
than from the correct paei-spelling of Justin.
uns rois tirans (Hilka, p. 1, 1. 18); with this must be compared a celut
Eram (Hilka, p. 1,1. 24). For these two passages Harl. (fol. 1r) reads .t. rovs
derans and a celuj seran, respectively. Behind all four words trans, Eram,
derans, and seran lies ultimately Caranus (Justin, vii, 1, 7), but more di-
rectly Ceranus of the Compilation (fol. Ir). Ceranus is reflected closely
enough by seran of Harl.; derans (Harl.) shows the first step leading —
either by error or popular etymology — to tirans in Hilka’s Berlin MS.
Eram of the Berlin MS. seems to point to nothing more than the chance
loss of initial s in transcription.!
la terre Dise (Hilka, p. 1, 1. 21); la terre Daise (Harl. fol. 1r). The ulti-
mate source is urbem Edessam (Justin, vii, 1, 7, 10). The Compilation (fol.
lv) probably shows us the beginning of the error; for in both passages (cor
responding to Justin, cit. supra) we find urbem Edeissam.2, The French
translator probably ignored the underdot, or else had before him a MS.
without this correction, and wrote Daise (perhaps originally Edazse or
Edeise?). Dise of the Berlin MS. may represent a corruption of a form
Daise such as is found in Harl.
1 Professor E. K. Rand suggests a simplification of -s s- to -s, from the situation rots serans
(cerans).
2 Corpus Christi College MS. 219 (fol. 1v) has correctly Edessam, but the French Dazse
(Dise) would seem to have arisen from an incorrect form with an ¢.
Notes 231
The French Prologue ends with a snatch from Vincent of Beauvais
(Speculum Historvale, v, 3).1 This passage does not occur in the Compilation,
and was probably introduced by the French translator as a suitable equiva-
lent to a corresponding passage in the Compilation (fol. 8r), based on Jus-
tin, xii, 16, 2-6 and Orosius, iii, 7, 4-5. All three — Justin, Orosius, and
Vincent — tell of the birth of Alexander the Great, but the passage in Vin-
cent forms a more fitting prelude to the marvellous story of the Historia de
Prelis to follow.
Finally, I should like to print two readings from MS. Harl. 4979 which
supplement Hilka’s text and of which the second strengthens the argu-
ment that the Old-French Prologue is based upon the Compilation:
I. 1 (Hilka, p. 8, ll. 7, 8) “bien que en la premiere bataille por ce qu’il alerent
sans lor roi... .”
2 (Harl., fol. @r) “‘bien ke en la premiere bataille furent desconfitz * pour che
ke il alerent sans leur roi. .. .”
This corresponds roughly to the Latin of the Compilation (fol. 2r), taken
from Justin, vii, 2, 12: “‘ostenderuntque hostibus suis priori bello regem Ma-
cedonibus, non uirtutem defuisse.””
II. 1 (Hilka, p. 8, ll. 21-27): “ . . . et de sa feme la rofne engenra il .iii. fius,
Alixandre, Phelipe et Perdike, et cil Phelippes fu peres au bon roi Alixandre le
Grant; d’une autre femme engenra cil Amicas .iii. fius, Acillem, Aridem et Mene-
lain. Et puis fist il ses grans batailles as gens de Helerie et d’Olinte. Mes puis fust
mors par traison et par les agais sa feme Euridice, ne fust sa fille qui a son pere
descouvri la putrie et la desloiauté de sa mere.”
2 (Harl., fol. 2v) “et de sa feme la roine
Euridiche engendra il .iii. fiex, Alixan-
dre, Perdike, Phelippe ki fu peres au
boin roi Alixandre le Grant. 1 tiers ot
non Eurion de Cigna [sic!]. D’une autre
feme engendra cis Amicas .iil. autres
fiex, Achillem, Arridem, et Menelaum.
Et puis fist il ses grans batailles as gens
d’Elerie et d’Olynthe. Mais puis “," i
mors par traison et par les agais sa feme,
la roine Euridiche, qu’ele eut encouuent a
son gendre ke ele son laron ochirott et li
liuerroit le roialme se u V'espousoit, ne fust
sa fille ki au pere descouurit la puterie
et la felounie et la desloiaute de sa mere.
1 Hilka, ed. cit., p. 5, 1.29 —p. 6, 1. 5.
8 (Compilation, fol. 2r) qui ex Euridice
tres filios sustulit, Alexandrum, Perdi-
cam, et Philippum, Alexandn Magni
Macedonis patrem, et filiam Eurionem;
ex Cignea autem Archelaum, Arideum,
Menelaum. Cum Illiriis deinde et cum
Olinthiis grauia bella gessit. Insidiis
etiam Euridicis uxoris, que nuptias
generi pacta occidendum uirum regnum-
que adultero tradendum susceperat,
occupatus fuisset, ni filia pelucatum
matris et sceleris consilia prodidisset.*
? Here and in the following passage, words which are not in Hilka are italicized.
® MS. Corp. Chr. Coll. 219 (fol. 2r), pelicatum for pelucatum.
232 Notes
From the point of view of establishing the French text, the Harl. variants
commend themselves without special comment; in both instances Harl.
supplies minor deficiencies in the Berlin text.
In the second variant (IT), however, the text of Harl. displays a signifi-
cant rapport with the Compilation, demonstrable by the spelling of certain
proper names. In Justin, vii, 4, 5—7 (the source of this portion of the Com-
puation), the name of Philip’s daughter is given as Eurynoén (acc. sg.);
in the Compilation this appears as Eurionem, thus corresponding closely
to the French Eurion. Furthermore, in Justin (loc. cit.) Philip’s second
wife is Gygaea (abl. sg.); in the Compilation she is Cignea,' whence taken
into the French.
In reviewing the evidence as a whole, there can, I think, be no question
as to the source of the historical Prologue of the French prose romance. The
agreement in the order of the narrative (the sequence of the passages from
Justin with the extract from Orosius) and the striking agreement in the
exceedingly peculiar spellings of many of the proper names lead one to the
conclusion that there lay before the translator of the Old-French Alex-
ander romance a MS. of the Compilation in which the forms of the proper
names were virtually identical with those in the two MSS at our disposal.
Confirmation of Hilka’s apt conjecture as to the source of the Old-French
Prologue is gratifying, but more significant for the history of the Alexander
legend is the refutation of Meyer’s observation that ‘‘Za compilation de
Saint-Alban ne parait pas s’étre répandue hors de ’ Angleterre. . . . Ellen’a
pu par conséquent avoir qu’une influence fort limitée sur les compositions en
langue vulgaire relatives a Alerandre.”’? Finally, the very fact that the dis-
tortion of the proper names in the vernacular text occurs first in the Latin
source may lead to a revised approach to the onomastic curiosities found in
our ‘best’ mediaeval vernacular writers!
1 In Corp. Chr. Coll. MS. 219 (fol. @r) the reading is unmistakably Cignea; in Gonrille and
Caius MS. 154 the reading is less clear: Cignea? Cignea? .
2 Meyer, op. cit. supra, p. 68. As a specimen of mediaeval secular narrative, paralleled
in the field of religious writing by Petrus Commestor’s Historia Scholastica and among his-
torical writings by Vincent of Beauvais’s great compilatory work, Speculum Historiale, the
Compilation of St Albans merits publication and study.
F. P. Maaoun, JR.,
Harvard University.
— we —ane ‘om, 9 eee, gg ee pA a P f
REVIEWS
HERMANN BEENKEN, Romanische Skulptur in Deutechland, 11. und 12. Jahrhundert. Leipzig:
Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1924.
Ir would certainly be an exaggeration to say that the Romanesque sculp-
ture of Germany had been neglected. It is evident from a glance at Dr
Beenken’s selected bibliography that the list of books upon it is a long and
an important one, and that not all are of recent date. However, it may
fairly be said that only since the war has the subject come into it own. But
now German mediaeval scholars have suddenly turned to the eleventh and
twelfth centuries with an extraordinary burst of enthusiasm. No less than
five books upon German Romanesque sculpture have appeared in the last
two years. The student who has not the good fortune to know German
monuments at first hand, is no longer therefore obliged to seek for his in-
formation here and there among sundry sources and be left with the uneasy
apprehension that much of importance escaped him, hidden away in monu-
ments the significance of which had not been realized, published only in
local monographs, easily overlooked, or perhaps wholly inaccessible. Espe-
cially with the publication of the new book of Dr Beenken that lies before
me, all this is changed. One has now the feeling of at last knowing German
Romanesque sculpture. What is wanted lies conveniently on the table.
There is no longer worry over the possibility that an obvious and vital fact
has slipped by. A great and glorious art is there, available for comprehen-
sion and for enjoyment.
Dr Beenken’s method of presentation is an admirable one — perhaps
it is hardly too much to say in many ways the most satisfactory that is pos-
sible. It consists of an illustrated catalogue raisonné preceded by an essay.
The introduction is happily free from the platitudinous verbosity which is
only too apt to be characteristic of such compositions.
Dr Beenken begins by insisting upon the aesthetic beauty of early Ro-
manesque sculpture. The idea is suggested that the tendencies of modern
art explain the power with which this period appeals to the present age. We
seek to find a mirror of our own feelings in the past; and our love for the
Romanesque is to be accounted for as a protest against the classic norms of
beauty which no longer satisfy us.
The revival of taste for early mediaeval art has led to a curious change
of values. The thirteenth century, which may be esteemed the classic
period of the Middle Ages, was long held in especial regard, but it came to
be found that the art of the twelfth century was even more satisfying. The
truth is, however, that the sculpture of the eleventh century is even finer
than that of the twelfth. This fact Dr Beenken is one of the first to have
233
= _e
234 Reriews
realized, and he has made it so evident for Germany, that he who runs may |
read. The generality holds, I believe, no less for other lands as well. The
old archaeological myth of the uncouth and barbarous eleventh century
must be abandoned; with increasing knowledge of its productions is certain
to come increased admiration. He who doubts need only compare the two
periods in the doors of San Zeno of Verona, or in the productions of the
school of Monte Cassino, to cite the first instances that come to mind.
The art of the eleventh century bore nowhere so abundant and so choice
fruit as in Germany and Anglo-Saxon England. ‘“‘ Deutsche Skulptur stand
vielleicht noch bis 1100, was die lebendige Qualitat threr Leistungen anbetrifft,
an die Syntze der gesamteuropdischen.” It is only in the twelfth century that
the hegemony passes to France.
The roots of the eleventh-century sculpture of Germany lie in Caro-
lingian and Ottonian art. Thus the Hildesheim doors are stylistically de-
rived from the covers of the Codex Aureus of St Emmeram of Regensburg,
now in the Staatsbibliothek of Munich. Professor Friend has recently
suggested that these book-covers were made at St Denis, hence French.! _ .
According to this view, therefore, the art of Hildesheim is ultimately of
French origin. |
The iconography of the Hildesheim doors, as well as the style, also pos-
sibly passed through France. The scenes from Genesis, arranged in bands,
recall the illuminations of a type of Bible which first appears in Northern
Europe in the Carolingian school of Tours. It is not, however, to be sup-
posed that this type was a creation of Alcuin or his monks. Long before,
such a cycle of illustrations existed in the East, was copied in the Bible
of Cotton, and again reproduced in the mosaics of San Marco of Venice.
Curious resemblances between the latter and the Bibles of Tours make one
question whether the inspiration for the miniatures was so exclusively
occidental as we have been taught. Thus the Hildesheim iconography goes
back to Tours, and perhaps even to Alexandria.
From such instances as this (and many similar could be named) we un-
derstand why it is that Romanesque sculpture was never really archaic.
The sculptors simply borrowed forms that had long before been perfected.
In the miniatures of Reichenau there had been evolved a formula by which
the artists conveyed an expression of strength, a feeling of earnestness and
a power of spiritual significance. They had triumphed over the merely
physical, over the limitations of corporeal form. This great heritage of a
mature art — one of the most mature, perhaps, that has ever been created (
— fell upon the shoulders of eleventh-century sculpture. Through the use |
of abstract curves and lines, that is by the emotional effect of pure beauty,
1 A. M. Friend, “Carolingian Art in the Abbey of St Denis,” Art Studies, I (1923), 67.
|
ee
»
>
em
Fic. 1
AARAU (SWITZERLAND), GEWERBEMUSEUM. RELIEF FROM VERENAKAPELLE
IN HERzNaAcH, ca. 961
Digitized by Google
Reviews 935
the sculptor is enabled to rise above representation, above the mere repro-
duction of natural shapes. Thus it became the mission of the artist to re-
veal not the superficial appearance, but the emotional reality of things,
‘to make the invisible visible, the incomprehensible comprehensible, the
hidden seen, the unrecognized known, the formless and artless the formful
and artful, the unreal real, and the unnatural natural.”’
The history of eleventh-century sculpture is the history of the transla-
tion first into metal, then into stone of the ideals and forms which had been
perfected by the miniature painters and the goldsmiths.
The introduction finished, Dr Beenken begins the main body of his book.
This consists of a series of full-page illustrations of some hundred and fifty
monuments; opposite each is a page of printed matter, in which the author
contrives to give not only the essential information in regard to the sculp-
ture, but also critical discussions. No words are wasted; the printed mat-
ter is amazingly concise, but, on the other hand, all that is needed is there.
The monographs contain much new and important matter. Dr Been-
ken has made no attempt to produce a complete corpus of German Roman-
esque sculpture; he has merely presented selected examples in such a way
as to give the reader a vivid idea of the consecutive development of the art.
One of the chief interests of the book is the light it throws upon styles
outside of Germany. Much that has been puzzling or incomprehensible in
the sculpture of France, Italy, and Spain becomes clear in the light of the
German facts now established. With these foreign relations Dr Beenken
deals frequently; he is much too broad a scholar to suppose that any region
can be understood without reference to others, and he never fails to relate
Germany to the larger development of the time. He has indeed been singu-
larly perspicacious in perceiving and disentangling the influences, Burgun-
dian, Lombard, or Western French, which alternately affected German art
during the twelfth century.
Dr Beenken’s first monograph is upon the pre-Carolingian stele from
Hornhausen. This is another proof that stone sculpture did not, as has been
supposed, wholly cease to exist during the so-called Dark Ages, for the re-
lief, of very respectable technical quality, is of the seventh or eighth cen-
tury. In this connection I cannot forbear to call attention to another stone
relief executed in the period when sculpture is believed not to have existed.
It is a Crucifixion from the Verenakapelle in Herznach, now in the Gewer-
bemuseum of Aarau, Switzerland (Fig. 1). An inscription states that this
was the gift of the bishop Landelous, ca. 961. It becomes increasingly evi-
dent that the art of stone sculpture was practised in Europe not only before
1100 but before 1000.
The Hornhausen relief shows many signs of Iranian influence to delight
the hearts of Strzygowski and Rostovtzev. The interlace with heads (there
236 Reviews
is an interlace also on the Aarau relief) recalls the Oseberg ship, the rope
motive the Kelermes mirror; the zig-zags on the back of the horse are like
those found on vases of the Middle Dnieper of the seventh to the fourth
centuries B.c.' and the centrifugal spokes of the shield, like the shields of the
Beatus, are not without analogy with the Prokhorovka patera. This cava-
lier is perhaps a cousin of the cavaliers of the Parthenon, and an ancestor
of those of the Porta della Pescheria.
The superb metal sculpture of the opening years of the eleventh century
in Germany? makes more comprehensible the important manifestations
of the same art which took place in Milan at the beginning of the eleventh
century under the archbishop Ariberto. The crucifix of the Milan cathe-
dral, and the book-covers in the sacristy of the same church, fit in with the
German monuments, as a tenon fits in with a mortise. They show that it
was not only in Germany that the art of the first part of the eleventh cen-
tury rose to superlative excellence.
In addition to the well-known monuments of the early years of the
eleventh century in Germany, such as the doors of Hildesheim and Augs-
burg, Dr Beenken gives due accent to others which have often been lost
sight of, the doors of St Maria im Kapitol of Cologne, the Essen and Pader-
born madonnas. He does not overlook the reliefs of St Emmeram of Re-
gensburg, dated authentically to the middle of the eleventh century, and
masterpieces of stone technique. It is interesting to compare the St Em-
meram of this series, executed between 1049 and 1064, with the tomb of .
St Ysarne (1048) at Marseille, which is contemporary (Fig. 2). The in-
scription of the Marseille tomb is of the type which would be composed for
a man recently dead, not for a saint long venerated; it praises the virtues
of the deceased abbot, the vigor and prudence of his admunistration.
Moreover the tomb also is not of the type which would be made for a saint
long dead. The monuments which contained the bodies of saints at San-
tiago de Compostela, St Junien, St Gilles, and elsewhere had the form of
altars, and they were adorned with sculptures representing Christ, angels,
the Virgin, the apostles, the four and twenty elders, or the life of the saint.
In no case is the saint represented as a gisant as here. And what a grsant!
We search the numerous tombs of the twelfth century in vain for the like.
The rounded top and bottom, the body interrupted save for the head and
the feet by the long inscription, nothing like this is found in later times.
The monument has that peculiar force and characterfulness which pro-
claims in trumpet tones that it dates from the eleventh century. The pre-
1 M.I. Rostovtzev, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922),
p. 91.
2 For this subject, see especially Margarete Burg, Ottonische Plastik (Leipzig: Schroeder,
1922).
Ds dein =: rapa rede meee le
Ven eae a
Bw ae whee
A Se Lee
MARSEILLE, Musée Borety. Tomes or St ISARNE
mea
ee
~~
ma
be oe Ide
Kia. 3
Artes (Boucnes-pu-RHONE), Musee. Tompstone or Count GEOFFROY
DE PROVENCE ({ ca. 1060). Detatn
we w
.
Reviews 937
émptory proof of its early date, however, is the epigraphy of the inscription.
We have only to compare this ' with the tomb-stone of Comte Geoffroy de
Provence (Fig. 8), who died about 1060, to be convinced that the two are
contemporary. In the latter, now preserved in the Arles Museum, we find
as in the epitaph of St Ysarne S’s made like reversed Z’s, Q’s made like
reversed P’s, pointed O’s and square C’s. All this makes it evident that the
inscription and the tomb date from exactly the time which the documen-
tary evidence would lead us to suppose.
Now when we compare the head of St Ysarne of Marseille (Fig. 2) with
the St Emmeram of Regensburg * we perceive that the two are not without
similarity. Without pushing the comparison to extremes, we note that the
types of the heads are undoubtedly related, and that the same convention
is used for the hair. The Marseille head is undoubtedly finer than the Re-
gepsburg St Emmeram. It is indeed one of the supreme productions of
French sculpture of all time. The features are modelled with exceeding
delicacy; the conception is fresh and masterly. The sculptor has expressed
all the mystery and all the poetry of death. The St Emmeram seems some-
what commonplace in comparison. For quality, a better parallel to the St
Ysarne is the superb Christ of Regensburg.
As one turns over the succeeding pages of Dr Beenken’s book, many
unanswerable (at least for me) questions arise regarding the relationship
of German monuments to those elsewhere in Europe. The stucco reliefs of
Werden, for example, with seated figures in niches, are stylistically related
to Avenas in Burgundy; * but the motive they typify has an eventful his-
tory. It turns up later in the choir-screens of Gustorf, Hildesheim and Hal-
berstadt; but these choir-screens must also be related to the sculptures
now in the exterior of La Charité and to the choir-screen of Souvigny.‘
From Souvigny seems to be derived St Menoux, and St Menoux has un-
canny points of similarity to Halberstadt. Halberstadt in turn appears to
come out of the Heribertschrein of Deutz.
The Kloster Griéningen rail may also not be without relationship to this
group. It throws at any rate an unexpected light upon the puzzling frag-
ments from St Benoft now in the Museum of Poitiers § which may perhaps
have formed part of a similar cycle of the apostles, with Christ seated in the
middle. Were the St Benoft sculptures perhaps originally part of a rail or
1 Tilustration in A. Kingsley Porter, Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads
(Boston: Marshall Jones Co., 1928), I, 1278.
2 Porter, op. cit., IX, 1281.
3 See A. Kingsley Porter, ‘Spain or Toulouse? and Other Questions,’ Art Bulletin, Sep-
tember, 1924.
4 A. Kingsley Porter, Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads, III, 124, 126.
® A. Kingsley Porter, idem III, 1182, 1133.
238 Reviews
a choir-screen? Were they part of a tympanum, like the seated apostles of
Carennac? What seems certain is, that they are somehow related to the
Groningen and Gustdorf reliefs, with which they are contemporary, and
which they resemble also in style. What are we to conclude from such
tangled evidence? It at least seems clear that the motive of seated apostles
appears to be German rather than French in origin, for it abounds in Ger-
man ivories. It also appears that essential characteristics of Gothic dra-
peries are already present in the altar-frontals of Aachen and Basel.
The possibility that Germany may have given to France, as well as re-
ceived from her, even in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, is suggested
by Dr Beenken’s doubtless correct dating of the Merseburg font to 1170--
90. Here the twelve apostles are shown on the shoulders of the twelve
prophets. This iconographic motive would therefore appear to be of Ger-
man origin; it is developed, it will be remembered, on the portal of Bam-
berg. In the thirteenth century it appears at Chartres, in the glass of the
south transept. Now this glass technically differs from that made usually
at the period in France and suggests by its style, as well as by its iconog-
raphy, a German origin.
One wonders, too, what may be the relationship between the tympanum
of Trier, which De Beenken dates shortly before 1170, and the nearly con-
temporary sculptures of Mimizan.! Dr Beenken, not knowing Mimizan
apparently, derives the sculptures of the Trier cathedral from the Neutor
relief, just as 1, not knowing Trier, had derived those of Mimizan from Car-
rién. Either derivation is convincing, but it is disconcerting to observe the
close parallel between Trier and Mimizan. Works so alike must be related,
but I am far from being certain whether we have a German influence at
Mimizan, or a pilgrimage influence at Trier. The latter, however, is per-
haps the more probable.
In fact, Dr Beenken does not seem to have fully realized the influence
of Spanish sculpture in Germany. Such an influence did, however, exist. A
characteristic example of it 1s afforded by the apostles of Basel. These are
arranged in groups of two talking to each other. This detail of iconography
Dr Beenken notes as German (“deutsch und allem Byzantinischen fremd’’).
Notwithstanding the Quedlinburg casket, may it not, however, be Spanish?
We find it in the Camara Santa of Oviedo, in sculptures which, stylistically
as well, are not without relationship to the Basel works. Moreover, the St
Vincent reliefs at Basel, by the same hand, recall the contemporary reliefs
of the same subject at San Vicente of Avila.
The Madonna between the symbols of the evangelists from a throne at
Siegburg, now in the Schniitgen Museum at Cologne is dated 1160-80 by
1 A. Kingsley Porter, Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads, III, 499, 491.
Fic. 4
S. Pierro pit Civate (Como).
DetariL or C1porruM
> a .
a
ee - te at)
was a
7 ‘ae: *
a
ln,
+’
h.
vx a? >
YZ
|
bt!
Hi
oo Alnag
a
8 ™s - cs
>
ra
ee
Sa
Re Some
—_—- —-
SAS
™
—
we 1%
: $9 Ss eT)
CivipaALe (Uprne). Tempretto LONGOBARDO
eee 8
Reviews 239
Dr Beenken, as against Liithgen’s dating to 1120. In this there can be little
doubt that Dr Beenken is right. .
Besides the other iconographical peculiarities, this Virgin is crowned.
This brings up a point recently raised by Dr Cook. In connection with the
Virgin of Sahagdn in the Madrid Museum, Dr Cook thinks that this sculp-
ture cannot, in spite of the documents, date from 1098, because she wears
a crown, and a crowned Virgin, he says, is not found as an isolated major
motif in Romanesque sculpture before the mid-twelfth century in the Ie-
de-France.!
As far as the Virgin of Sahagin is concerned, his argument is at once
thrown out, for he does not seem to have known that this relief originally
was not isolated, but formed part of a tympanum, which probably repre-
sented the Adoration of the Magi. But the motive of the crowned Virgin,
even isolated, originated not in the Ile-de-France and long before 1150. A
crowned Virgin of the fifth or sixth century is found at Santa Maria Antiqua
at Rome. A crowned Virgin is found isolated in the eleventh-century frescos
of Sant’ Angelo in Formis; the mctive is indeed characteristic of the frescos
of the Monte Cassino school, being found also in eleventh-century work at
Ausonia and Foro Claudia. There was similarly a crowned Virgin in the
apse of the cathedral of Capua, executed in the first years of the twelfth
century by the archbishop Hugo. A crowned Virgin isolated also appears
on a seal of Lincoln cathedral of ca. 1100, and in an ivory of the middle of
the eleventh century of the Mayer van den Bergh collection at Antwerp.
Crowned Virgins are found in frescos of the twelfth century at Lambrate
and San Teodoro of Pavia. A crowned Virgin appears in the scene of the
Ascension in the eleventh-century Bible of Farfa. In stone sculpture a
crowned Virgin is found isolated in the altar of Marseille. In the tenth-
century Benedictional of Rouen, a crown is suspended over the head of the
Virgin in the scene of the Dormition. It is therefore not true that the
crowned Virgin as an isolated motive originated in the sculpture of the [e-
de-France about the middle of the twelfth century. The Virgin of Sahagin
was, however, as has been observed, not isolated, but part of an Adoration
of the Magi. Crowned Virgins are represented in this scene in the sculp-
tures of Gustorf, ca. 1130, in an ivory of Melk, dating ca. 1065-75, in the
other contemporary altar of Melk, and in the celebrated ivory of the South
Kensington Museum ascribed by Maskell to the eleventh century.’
1 W. W. S. Cook, ““The Stucco Altar-Frontals of Catalonia,” Art Studies, Medieval, Re-
naissance, and Modern (Princeton: The University Press), II (1924), 50.
2 It is open to question whether the Virgin in this ivory wears a real crown or some sort of
metal head-dress. The same doubt arises in connection with an ivory of the first half of the
twelfth century in the British Museum, and indeed with the Virgin of Sahagin herself.
240 Renews
To return to German Romanesque sculpture, one of the facts that is
most strongly impressed upon one on turning the pages of Dr Beenken’s
book, is the predominance of Byzantine influence. There is nothing new
about this in Germany. Ottonian art had similarly been impregnated by
Eastern motives. We note that the Hodogetria type of Madonna appears
at St Mana im Kapitol of Cologne before reaching the north portal of Char-
tres; manv other details of iconography and of stvle bear witness to the
persistence of this influence. It is especially strong in the large and im-
portant group of stucco sculptures which are so characteristic of German
sculpture of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Beginning with the reliefs
of Werden of the eleventh centurv, a glorious series of monuments in this
medium is preserved for us in Germany, including masterpieces like the
Holy Sepulchre of Gernrode, the apostles from Gandersheim, the Erfurt
reredos, the Groningen rail, the Beatitudes of St Michael of Hildesheim,
the choir-rails of the same church and of Halberstadt. Indeed it is hardly
too much to say that this stucco technique is one of the most significant
facts in German sculpture of the twelfth century, and that it determined
the forms of works executed in other mediums like the tombs of the ab-
besses of Quedlinburg. Now the Byzantine influence is especially marked
in all this group of stucco sculptures.
Stucco technique may be said to be peculiarly German. The medium
indeed seems to have been scarcely known elsewhere during the Roman-
esque period. Strzygowski has supposed that it was practised also in the
East, but if so, no monuments have come down to us. Certain capitals of
the eleventh-century St Remi of Reims seem to have been executed in this
medium, and there are a few traces of its use here and there throughout
Europe. Such are, however, rare. In general it is not an exaggeration to
say that, during the Romanesque period, this is a German medium.
The suspicion arises in my mind that the stucco sculptures at Civate,
Cividale, and San Ambrogio of Milan, all in northern Italy, may be no ex-
ception to this statement. The attribution of this group of works has been
widely discussed; they have been believed to be Byzantine of the eighth
century. Latterly, considerable doubt has been expressed whether they are
really so early, and really Byzantine. The ciborium at Milan seems to be
rather definitely documented as after 1196. The three monuments resemble
each other so closely that they must all be about contemporary; I even
went so far as to suggest in Lombard Architecture that notwithstanding their
obvious differences they should be assigned to the same atelier. Now no
Byzantine works like any of the three are known. On the other hand,
from Dr Beenken’s book it becomes evident that this group of sculptures
closely resembles the stucco work of Germany. I therefore am inclined to
believe that the Italian stuccos are of German derivation; this would
Rn |
ae eee eee Oe t—‘“‘“_
of
‘ 4 - s 4 a 4 4
7 ° i. a
aE YS eee
e
KF Ie Sy ee
a ™ t' »
f 7 x
?
WANG VANUYz
G : S 4
A. NWWAN
Fic. 6b
Tempietto LONGOBARDO
CivipALE (UpINE).
-—-4 it~
4 os rr; a
IMVSA rN
-
«
- 5 Seg a i —. wy r “a - oa ee
?
a)
Fic.
STUCCOS IN CRYPT
Pietro pi Civate (Como).
S.
Fic. 7
(Co
s IN Crypt
Stucco
MO).
VATE
_
I
PIETRO D1
S
Reviews Q41
explain their obviously Byzantine character, for the sculpture of Germany
is strongly under Byzantine influence, and it would explain their isolation in
Italian art.
A detailed comparison may make the reason for this suggestion clearer.
If we put the ciborium of Civate (Fig. 4) beside the choir-screens of Hilde-
sheim and Halberstadt,' we cannot but be struck by the similarity of the
style, especially in the treatment of the draperies. A similar analogy of
style exists between stuccos of the crypt of Civate (Fig. 5) and those of
Griningen.? That this peculiar manner is thoroughly German is demon-
strated by the font of Freckenhorst, which dates from as early as 1129.*
The Cividale ‘ stuccos show similar resemblances to the sculpture of Ger-
many. Thus the lyre motive, formed of two S’s placed alternately straight
and reversed, recurs in the border of the tomb of the Abbess Adelheid I at
Quedlinburg.® Similarly, the other extraordinary motive of an eight-petaled
flower, which is so conspicuous a feature of the stuccos of Cividale (Fig. 6),
recurs at the angles of the tomb-stone of the Abbess Beatrix at Quedlinburg.®
Moreover there is a striking resemblance between the figures at Cividale
and those of the Beatitudes of Hildesheim. We notice in both the same
elongation, the same characteristic faces, the same influence of Byzantine
ivories. The face of the figure to the right of the arch at Cividale 1s almost
identical with that of the Abbess Geva in the church at Freckenhorst,’ and
the draperies also have points of contact. The board-like garments, deco-
rated with all-over patterns, so striking at Cividale and so obviously Byzan-
tine, are also found in the font of Freckenhorst. The faces of the Civate
ciborium are closely analogous to those of the school of Cologne.
Another monument which should be considered in this connection is the
St Ulrichskapelle at Miinster in Switzerland.’ The style of this monument
is very close to that of the stuccos of Civate, especially those in the crypt
(Fig. 7); but geographically it is situated beyond the frontiers of Italy, on
the road that leads to Germany.
1 Beenken, pp. 225, 227, 229-287.
2 Ibid., pp. 186-142. 3 Ibid., pp. 80-85.
4 A. Kingsley Porter, Lombard Architecture, IV, Plate 57, Fig. 6.
5 Beenken, p. 71. The same motive occurs on the archivolt of the Porte Papale of the
cathedral of Le Puy (Congrés Archéologique de France, Session tenue au Puy en 1904, p. 230).
This has been considered Carolingian or even Gallo-Roman, but is more probably of the
twelfth century. The motive does, however, occur on a Gallo-Roman terra cotta now in the
museum of Douai (zbid., p. 234).
* Beenken, p. 71.
7 Illustrated by Eugen Ltithgen, Romanische Plastik in Deutschland (Bonn: Schroeder,
1928), Pl. XLVII.
® Tilustration in A. Gaudy, Die kirchliche Baudenkmdler der Schweiz (Berlin: Wasmuth,
1922), p. 72.
Q42 Reviews
The combined force of all this evidence seems then to give reason for
believing that the stucco sculptures of northern Italy were executed by Ger-
man masters. Moreover, it should be observed that the German works with
which these stuccos show analogy generally date from the last quarter of
the twelfth century. Dr Beenken assigns Groningen to ca. 1170; the Beati-
tudes and choir-screen of St Michael of Hildesheim are of about 1186; the
tomb of the Abbess Geva is of the second half of the twelfth century accord-
ing to Ltithgen, and the stuccos of Miinster of 1166—70 according to Gaudy.
All this seems to indicate that the Italian stuccos are to be dated in the last
quarter of the twelfth century, and agrees perfectly with the documentary
evidence that the ciborium of Sant’ Ambrogio was executed after 1196.
The influence of German stuccos was felt not only in Italy. The tomb
at Bruay (Nord) in France belongs to this same group, and also resembles
the work at Cividale.
Such are a few of the many reflections to which the reading of the ad-
mirable book of Dr Beenken gives rise. His exposition of German Roman-
esque sculpture renders an inestimable service not only to the special stu-
dent of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in Germany, but to all who
interest themselves in the Romanesque of whatever portion of Europe. This
is a work the usefulness of which to scholars is destined to remain and in-
crease with the passing years; it is not only something of a revelation on
first reading, but will become an indispensable work of reference.
A. KinasLey Porter,
Harvard University.
Wriiiiam Waker Rocxwet., Liber Miraculorum Ninivensium Sancti Cornelis Papae. Ein
Beitrag xur Flandrischen Kirchengeschichte. Gvttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1925. Pp. 130.
Proressor RocKWELt deserves the thanks of mediaevalists for this reissue,
witb notable additions and improvements, of his dissertation, which first
came from the press in the tragic month of August, 1914. Not only does
it contain the full texts of two very interesting works from the Premon-
stratensian abbey of Ninove in Belgium, the Liber Miraculorum noted in
the title and a little treatise De Fundatione Ninivensis Abbatie, but an in-
troduction in which the extant documents connected with the history of
the foundation are analyzed with equal skill and thoroughness. In short,
the monograph is a model of its kind, since the author has set the docu-
mentary remains of the abbey in very good order.
The two texts are taken from a manuscript in the library of the Union
Theological Seminary, the longer section of which was written at Ninove
in 1199, and was probably made by Henricus de Sualma, a sacristan of the
Reviews 243
abbey, who seems also to have been the compiler. This Liber Miraculorum
is noteworthy for the light it throws indirectly on the difficulties of the
foundation and on other local occurrences. The brief account of the origins
of the monastery, imbedded in the longer work, is equally interesting. In
spite of its possession of relics of St Cornelius, the establishment never at-
tained more than regional celebrity, but its records are thoroughly typical
and of corresponding value.
Gorpon Hatt GeERouLp,
Princeton University.
Marc Brocu, La Vie doutre-tombe du Rot Salomon. Extrait de la Reoue belge de Philologie
et d’ Histoire, IV, 349-877 (nos. 2-S, avril-septembre, 1925).
Tuis study of a tale of marvels contained in a Latin life of Edward the
Confessor composed between 1161 and 1250 is made with the solid erudi-
tion and the grace to be expected of the author of Les Rows thaumaturges.
The fate in the next world of King Solomon, who merited both rewards
and punishments for his deeds in this life, preoccupied both Jewish and
Christian minds. Professor Bloch shows that the story with which he is
concerned was the outgrowth of much theological speculation and had
thus a learned origin, although it would appear at first sight to be a product
of what we call vaguely “popular imagination.”’ His investigation has also
the incidental value of tracing the history of Solomon post mortem in Tal-
mudic writings and Christian iconography.
Gorpon Haut GEROULD,
Princeton University.
Reomatp Lanz Poo.e, Chronicles and Annals: a Brief Outline of their Origin and Growth.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926. Pp. 79.
LIKE everything that its learned author writes, this little book is full of
solid meat. Its theme is the origin and interrelations of the annals and
chronicles of the Middle Ages, as distinguished from the ampler histories
of the epoch, down to the thirteenth century. In the genesis of annals
from the Easter tables, the author emphasizes the importance of the
acceptance of the Dionysian table at Whitby in 664 and the spread of the
era of the Incarnation at least froin the time of Bede: “‘It was the discovery
of this Era that made the revival of historiography possible, and it was
beyond question an English discovery.” ‘Two interesting facsimiles are
given of Easter-table annals from codices of Einsiedeln. The author finds
his way through the tangled controversy respecting the early Frankish
annals, concerning which Miihlbacher remarked that too much ink had
been spilt; and he is particularly good on the English annals and their
continental connections. The more orderly chronicles of the close of the
944 Reriews
twelfth century he quite rightly associates with the spread of order and |
arrangement in the contemporary chanceries. By a slip on p. 61 the con-
tinuation of Sigebert by Robert of Torigni is made to stop in 1159 instead
of 1186.
CuHarLes H. Hasxys,
Harvard University.
Byszantion. Revue internationale des Eudes byzantines. Publié par Paul Graindor et Henri
Grégoire. Tome 1. Paris — Liege, 1924. H. Champion, Vaillant-Carmanne. Pp. viii,
765, with 15 plates. 75 fr.
New periodicals are frequent phenomena in our post-bellum age, but the
appearance of a useful newcomer which promises to fill a long-felt gap is
always welcome. Such is the case with Byzantion. The Byzantine
field, which has hitherto been served by German and by Russian periodi-
cals, has suffered above all others from unavoidable restrictions in publish-
ing material and from a corresponding scattering of contributions. The
journal, started with the approval of the last Congress of Historical
Sciences (at Bucarest) by two well-known Belgian scholars, is planned on
broad lines to be an international organ and rallying-point for Byzantinists.
The first issue forms a complete volume: further fascicules are to be pub-
lished twice a year. It forms a stately tome, to which a goodly number of
eminent scholars in this field have made their contributions. Most of the
countries of Europe are represented.
The volume is dedicated to the eminent historian of Byzantine art,
N. P. Kondakov, who died just as it saw the light. J. Ebersolt gives us a
brief sketch of his scholarly work (pp. 1-6). Perhaps for this reason a
large part of the articles contained in the first number are devoted to
artistic topics. Professor Kondakov himself heads the list with a lengthy
study, “Les costumes orientaux a la cour de Byzance” (pp. 7-49), tracing
their filiations both eastward and westward. Particularly interesting is
his discussion of the cxapayayyiov. D. Ajnalov, “Un fragment d’évan-
géliaire du VI° siécle de la collection V. N. Chanenko” (pp. 59-74), dis-
cusses an ivory plaque of Caucasian provenience (now in Kiev), and
shows that it formed the cover of a lectionary or a gospel. V. BeneSevié,
“Sur la date de la mosaique de la Transfiguration au monte Sinal”
(pp. 145-172), investigates the chronology of this monument, and estab-
lishes that it is to be placed in the years 565-566; he also reconstructs the
list of the higoumens of Sinai for the sixth century (p. 171). A. Grabar,
“‘Un reflet du monde latin dans une peinture balkanique du XIII siécle”
(pp. 229-243), points out that the posture and treatment in the portrait of
the Czarina Décislava at Boiana in Bulgaria (1259 a.p.) stands manifestly
under western European influence: the ship in a picture of the miracle of
Reviews 945
St Nicholas at the same place is of a western type. P. Graindor, ‘‘Buste
du musée d’Athénes” (pp. 245-250), calls the attention of scholars to a
bearded bust in the Athens Museum, which he considers to represent a
philosopher and attributes to the middle of the fifth century a.p. Two
articles by V. Grecu, “Eine Belagerung Konstantinopels in der rumini-
schen Kirchenmalerei” (pp. 274-289), and P. Henry, “De l’originalité des
peintures bucoviniennes dans |’application des principes byzantines”
(pp. 291-303), deal with the interesting Byzantine survivals in Rumanian
paintings. Incidentally the date 6035 in the Slavic lemma on p. 288 is of
course the Byzantine era (6035 — 5508-09 = 6238-24), which is a mistake
for 626, the date of the siege of Constantinople by the Avars: Henry’s re-
marks on p. 296, note, are also to be corrected. The tribe of the I-zyxy are
clearly the Zixo., a people of the Euxine littoral district east of the Sea of
Azov, while the I-zkyxy are possibly the Qasig = Circassians. The lemma
looks like a note of synaxarial origin, and is certainly connected with the
tale preserved in Greek of the attack on Constantinople and the writing of
the hymn ’Axd6.070s, de quo vid. Krumbacher, Geschichte d. byzan. Litt. (2d
ed.), II, 672-673; 251. G. de Jerphanion, ‘‘Le cycle iconographique de S.
Angelo in Formis’’ (pp. 341-366), deals with the iconography of this most
important monument. A. Munoz, “Alcune osservazioni intorno al Rotulo
di Giosué et agli Ottateuchi illustrati”’ (pp. 475-488), establishes the artistic
stemma of the illustrated manuscripts of this type. J. Puig i Cadafalch,
‘*L’architecture religieuse dans le domaine byzantin en Espagne’”’ (pp. 519-
533), gives an interesting account of the scanty remains of Byzantine art
which have been found in the Balearic Islands and in Spain, while J. Strzy-
gowski, ““Die Kunstgeschichte und die byzantinischen Studien”’ (pp. 535-
555), insists that more attention be paid to northern influences in the
study of mediaeval art.
In the field of historical studies, A. Andréadés has an interesting sketch
(in substance a revision and enlargement of an appendix of his ‘Ioropla
ris ‘EXAnvuxiis Snuoolas olxovoulas, év ‘APnvats 1918, o. 401-416, entitled “‘De
la monnaie et de la puissance d’achat des métaux précieux dans |’empire by-
zantin”’ (pp. 75-115), in which he comes to the surprising (but by no means
certain) conclusion that the purchasing power of money, where fundamental
products were concerned, differed but little in mediaeval Byzantium from
modern times. H. I. Bell, “The episcopalis audientia” (pp. 189-144), pub-
lishes an interesting papyrus (Pap. Lond. Inv. 2217, saec. v) which forms
a welcome addition to the rare documents we possess which illustrate this
type of jurisdiction. A. Blanchet, “Une bague d’un comte de ]’Opsikion”
(pp. 178-176), publishes a gold ring belonging to a certain Leontius, ap-
parently dating from the tenth century. L. Bréhier, “Les populations
rurales au [X° siécle d’aprés l’hagiographie byzantine” (pp. 177-190), deals
246 Renews
with the social structure of the Byzantine provinces, and shows that at
the period in question the aristocracy in no way formed a closed order. H.
Delehaye, “‘La vie de sainte Théoctiste de Lesbos” (pp. 191-200), shows
that the majority of the details in the mise-en-scéne in the life of this saint
are borrowed from the rita of St Mary of Egypt, and are probably unhis-
torical. Ch. Diehl, “Le Senat et le peuple byzantin aux VII* et VIII*
giécles” (pp. 201-218), traces the reaction to senatorial independence ob-
servable in this body after Justinian’s despotic reign. J. Gay, “Notes sur
Vhellénisme sicilien”’ (pp. 215-228), deals with the survival of the Greek ele-
ment in Sicily after the fall of the Byzantine régime, comparing it with con-
ditions in Italy. J. Laurent, “Des Grecs aux Croisés’’ (pp. 367-449), traces
the history of Edessa during the period 1071-1099, and sketches the gen-
eral condition in Syria on the eve of the First Crusade. C. Marinesco, “‘ Du
nouveau sur Constance d’Hohenstaufen, impératrice de Nicée” (pp. 451—
468), publishes some interesting Latin (and one Greek) documents from
the archives of Barcelona, illustrating the romantic history of this last
scion of the imperial house. V. Valdenberg, “Discours politiques de The-
mistius dans leur rapport avec l’antiquité”’ (pp. 557-580), discusses the
political theories of the orator; the article is well worth the attention of
investigators in this field, as it combats most successfully the prevalent
theory that Greek political thought was affected with a cataleptic trance
at the death of the Stagirite.
With topography are concerned the studies of F. M. Abel on “Une
mention byzantine de Sbalta” (pp. 151-158), which he finds in the text of
St Nilus, and of N. A. Bees, “Sur quelques évéchés suffragants de la métro-
pole de Trébizonde” (pp. 117-137).
Into tbe category of philology and paleography fall: B. Granié, “‘Der
Inhalt der Subscriptionen in den datierten griechischen Handschriften des
XI., XII., und XIII. Jahrhunderts” (pp. 251-272), a valuable monograph,
which would, however, be much more enlightening if the contemporary
Slavic, Armenian and Georgian colophons were taken into account. D.
Hesseling, ‘‘ Notes critiques sur deux poémes grecs du moyen Age” (pp.
805-316), gives emendations and variants to the Middle-Greek poems Atj-
ynow mwadddpactos Tay TeTpardédwy (wwy and the IlovNoddyos as edited by W.
Wagner (Leipzig, 1874). E. Jeanselme and L. Oeconomos, “La satire
contre les higouménes,”’ have translated this pseudo-Prodromitic poem with
a commentary (pp. 317-339). On p. 324 zcayyiwy is not an Old-English
word, but probably of Iranian origin: see Theophanes’s Chron. ed. de Boor
182,4 (cf. 168,26) r¢ayyapeta; this text 1s dated in the year 532. G. Mercati,
“Tl Plutarco di Bartolommeo da Montepulciano” (pp. 469-474), describes
a newly found manuscript (Vat. Gr. 21765, saec. xiv), which contains twenty-
eight of the lives and three tractates of the Moralia. P. Peeters, “Sur la
Reriews Q4'7
necessité d’un onomasticon de |’Orient byzantin” (pp. 485-499), points out
the enormous value of such a collection to scholars in general. J. Psichari,
‘Sainte Euphémie ou les tribulations d’un linguiste”’ (pp. 501-517), gives
& most amusing account of tracing the permutation of ¢>6 in the dialect of
the Ionian Islands. It might be observed that this change occurs sporadic-
ally in Georgian loan words from the Greek; ?’ebervalt = ‘February’ (con-
taminated by the Russian form Mespanp and t’elgma = odéyya (this latter
in tenth-century manuscripts). Greek words in some cases have come over
into Georgian from Greek dialectical forms, e.g., panasiidi from Gr.
mxavvuxls(-ldos); x before. = 8).
A series of reviews of considerable length, and a most useful set of regional
bulletins (America, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Rumania, Yugoslavia), to which
should be added the note “‘ Byzantion et les savants russes” (pp. 717-727),
comprise a most acceptable explicit to a very interesting ensemble.
R. P. Buaxe,
Harvard University.
Maes at
“— .
tte 14
Sees
=
Me
Say fC
yy)
ro ls Ae
in, PS) oe
<
-
«
ie
Bathp as
. 7 » - Ng - j
BS theta Oe.
F eae
\
, 5 wer 5 Va 4 T
fa
n
-
’
*
-*
“<
Sa
e
tat Aye ¥
£. 7 > t 4 nf
° -
>
- ni - 7" s f - i. rs ' . - ” = 5
, ' , ey of} is > ai ‘ : oa J q ~ ., %
34 Ce Peaoork i; e: : 3 : 4 hit hs ‘ Vs ah bs +.
rem J * Ne dS) p NY Sie - “' 7
~
. or
-
wa
a Pe
, F< | a : thle ‘ ¥ ae » “93
SOT BNE Ae % Sxeume: aly. Fhe
a -
fre oe Ro a ey
Se ABR ES Me ot ay Py MeL
- ‘are? A
~~. on : J ,
.
vate ee Pht We Noh
' f ” : , “ PP es is ‘ ar. a ae : : - : - _, ae
- ‘ : ‘ 7. hay » - . : - : , . , - ‘ 7
7 > q / ma) y ae ey ’ : ‘ . , 7" 4 - : et - z *
‘ A . P we fy « T - q ‘ i¢ - died . ‘ y wa 7 ) Ss + -
e ~ t ays si x : .
a
7
: Ri
--
oie
*
ts
> eee
a a in id, +.
re é 1 ’ ” Lies : i ‘ ; . y ="y a a* a +; AN . ‘ht ) Sane ~ ; nite
; . ’ ’ .
t He en
ates
es
eH a tease
eae
~> | & <
-
1+
—%
2
~~
(m
;
\ i> ‘ ‘ , A " . > - - ad ve He,
’ ~ 4% p ‘ J a { ty > - > . 4 eae 4 7
oy et be f 14 :
: |
Sy.
. wT eS
« see 2 4
Sc I,
ayes
~~. —
=
x.
SAR
6
.
“us
a
an
~~
a
>
*
ants Ss.
+e ad
- 46
ized by
L - 7
- — 4 - a ; » 7 hy + ‘ “<4 7 ‘ i
’ of . > - : 1D) 7
‘ss . , * - + ha r - 4 \ ——'
. - v 7 ; ¥ -
ria > ’ ; its : ’ . 7
res . ‘ : fw - A
‘ ” » 5 ’ - > :
o > +¢ - : 2 - _ L
a 7
’ = 7 J
- : . rs ; “ ws - ae 2
. 4d
¢ “
7 ’ . :
. . ; 4 : - eA ‘
t . 7 -
- .
> - . 7 -
. 7 vy
. a
- : : - s ; “~ "7 ¥ a
a .
: uF ‘ - . - ® ad ® -
‘a ; : at!
7 e »
- # 4 '
-
' : : -
, . ¢
a - .
z .
¥ - ny —
: nd a _
a
4 7 - 7
- . - y
+ 4 .
d 5
-
:
- " . "
. : . 8
:
‘
’ ~
id ad
:
-
~
- :
- *
< - ‘ a
.
a
x -
:
: 9 -
-
~
; ' : /
-
ml
e
“ Ms
Ss > :
- <-
“¢
. —
7 *
- - -
-
- as
- es :
Pent
-
° : rt = 7
¥ .
- _ >
. ns 7 e
re - —
-
'y
; - >
°? -
4 : - . ig
7 : s
4 a > es
7
- - .
; be
PECULUM
Be oA JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES -
ee JULY, 1926
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
v4
‘
=
7
r
on
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
ANY person desirous of becoming a Member of the Mup1rarEvau ACADEMY OF AMERICA
uested to communicate with one of the Officers or with a Member. Candidates
is
- are ed when nominated by a Member and approved by an Officer of the Acap-
EMy. Active Membership, Five Dollars per annum. Besides Active Membership, the
following classes of Membership are open to all who may wish to make further con-
tributions to the support and endowment of the Acapemy: Contributing Member-
ship, Ten Dollars per annum; Life Membership, One Hundred Dollars; Sustaining
.Membership, Five Hundred Dollars. A Sustaining Member who subscribes at one
time One Thousand Dollars shall be known as a Benefactor; Ten Thousand Dollars,
as a Patron; and Fifty Thousand Dollars within Two Years of the Date of Incorpo-
ration (December 23, 1925) as a Founder. See By-Laws, §$11-14. |
y nO arti ley Ss. :
(o cytns = -ORFICERS OF THE ACADEMY
POM peony | |
; | "President
x og Z Epwarp KEenNArD Ranp
~ eee ee, f Harvard University Ja
__..Piret Vioe-President | | Second Vice-President = Third Vice-President
o#N Marrazgws Many ' Cares Hower Haskins James Freco WILLARD
University of Chicago | Harvard University University of Colorado
Treasurer | _ Executive Secretary "Clerk
Joun Nicuo.as Brown | JoHN MARSHALL Rapa Apams Cram
- Providence, B. I. Cambridge, Mass. Boston, Maes.
| Couned |
Pare Scouy.Ler ALLEN Caar.es Henry Besson Georcet Rateicn Corrma
University of Chicago 8 University of Chicago Boston University
~ Gorpon Hatt Gerovutp } Louris Jonn Partow Groras Artaur Puiurro
Princeton University. | University of California New York City -_
Anraur Kinas.zy Porter WiuuiamM Waker Rocxwett Jawes Huon Ryan
Harvard University _ Union Theological Seminary Catholic University of America
Joun Srrone Perry Tatitock James Westyatt Tompson Karu Youne
Harvard University University of Chicago Yale University
The purpose of the Mapiarvat AcapEemMy or AMERICA is “to conduct, encourage,
romote, and support research, publication, and instruction in mediaeval records,
iterature, languages, arts, archaeology, history, philosophy, science, life, and all other
aspects of mediaeval civilization. . . .".— Extract from Agreement of Association.
Subscriptions, effective from January 1 of the current calendar-year, should be
paid to the MepiarvaL ACADEMY OF AMERICA, ‘/, Service Bureau, Lehman Hall,
Cambridge, Mass. Any Member wishing to withdraw must signify his intention in
writing prior to January 1 of the ensuing year; otherwise he will be considered liable
to pay his subscription for that year.
It is particularly requested that any change of residence or error in address be
communicated forthwith to the Executive Secretary of the Acaprmy, °/> Service
Bureau, Lehman Hall, Cambridge, Mass.
A copy of the By-Laws of the AcapEmy will be sent post-free to each Member upon
election. Additional copies may be had from the Clerk at Fifty Cents each.
SpecuLom, A JounNAL or Mepraevat Srupiss, is delivered post-free to Members
not in arrear of the Annual Subscription and to Life Members and to the various
classes of Contributing Members. | |
a ee Ve af ~“ a ed ee a el
—.
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
CONTENTS
ARTICLES
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FIRST ELECTION OF FELLOWS ......
MEDIAEVAL GLOOM AND MEDIAEVAL UNIFORMITY. PRESIDENTIAL
ADDRESS «62:0: 6. ec a BR Bh Be a ee ee eS
e e¢ @ e& «© @ @ e© j.@ @® oe «#
LIBER DE COLORIBUS ILLUMINATORUM SIUE PICTORUM FROM
SLOANE MS. NO.1764............0.. D. V. Taompson, Jr 280
. THE MEDIAEVAL CONCEPTION OF KINGSHIP AS DEVELOPED IN
THE POLICRATICUS OF JOHN OF SALISBURY .... J.Dicxrxson 308
NOTES
RELATIONS OF THE INQUISITION TO PETER OF ABANO AND
CECCO. D’ASCOLLD 3. os oa we eo a a er OH Se BOK ow
es @8@ e68 e®© @ @®© @ @ @ @ @@ @¢ e¢© @ e® e¢ j@® @ @ @® @ e @ @® @ «@
A MANUSCRIPT OF TOURS, No. 286 ..........4.-.
A WELSH BRANCH OF THE ARTHOR FAMILY-TREE. . E. H. Water
REVIBWS: 46.5% 4 bse ko Bw Se ek aw Oe So AS eee Se
Maurice de Wulf, History of Mediaeval Philosophy, Vol. I (J. H. Ryan); Olgiati-
Zybura, The Key to the Study of St Thomas (J. H. Ryan); Somerset Bateman, Stmon
de Montfort, His Life and Work (J. F. Willard); G. R. Galbraith, The Constitution of
the Dominican Order (J. F. Willard); Mélanges d'histoire du moyen dge offerts a M.
Ferdinand Lot par ses amis et ses éléves (C. BH. Haskins); Recent Publications on
Geoffrey of Monmouth (J. S. P. Tatlock); J. H. Pitman, The Riddles of Aldhelm:
Text and Translation (F.P. Magoun, Jr.); J.R. Reinhard, Amadas et Ydoine, roman
du xiiie siécle (F. P. Magoun, Jr.); R. K. Root, The Book of Troilus and Criseyde
by Geoffrey Chaucer (preliminary announcement).
NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
VOLUME I JULY, 1926 NUMBER 3
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
SPECULUM, A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
EDITORIAL BOARD
Eprror-1n-CHIEF
Epwarp KENNARD RaNnp
Manaarinea Epitor Pus.isaine Eprror
Francis Peasopy Maaoun, Jr. JoHN NICHOLAS BROWN
It is kindly requested that all communications intended for the above editors be addressed
% Service Bureau, Lehman Hall, Cambridge, Mass.
Wiiu1am WITHERLE LAWRENCE JamMES HucH Ryan
Columbia University Catholic University of America
Cuartes Rurus Morey Ernest Hatch WILKINS
Princeton University University of Chicago
Louis JoHN PAETOW Kart YounG
University of California Yale University
ADVISORY BOARD
Paiure ScHUYLER ALLEN GrorGE La PIANA
University of Chicago Harvard University
Harry MorGcan AYRES JoHN Matruews MANLY
Columbia University University of Chicago
CHARLES HENRY BEESON Dana CarLtonN Munro
University of Chicago Princeton University
GrorGE RaLEIGH COFFMAN Wivui1amM ALBERT NITZE
Boston University University of Chicago
CorNELIA CATLIN COULTER ArtTuur Kinas.tey PorTER
Mount Holyoke College Harvard University
Rautepo ApamMs CRAM Frep Norris Rosirvson
Boston, Massachusetts Harvard University
Gorpon Hatt GEROULD JoHN StrRoNG Perry TATLOCK
Princeton University Harvard University
GrorGE LIVINGSTONE HAMILTON JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
Cornell University University of Chicago
CuHarLres Homer HaskINs LYNN THORNDIKE
Harvard University Columbia University
JAMES Firevtp WILLARD
University of Colorado
SpecoLum, A JOURNAL oF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES, is published quarterly by the MmpptaEvAL
AcaApEMY oF AmMERiIcA. The issues appear in January, April, July, and October. The sub-
scription price is Five Dollars; single copies may be had post-free for One Dollar and Fifty
Cents. Members of the ACADEMY receive SPECULUM post-free. In case of accidental omission
in the delivery of SpecuLum, Members are requested to communicate forthwith in writing
with the Publishing Editor. MSS submitted for publication should be forwarded to the
Managing Editor, but MSS will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped and self-
addressed envelope. For the details of editorial practice Contributors are directed to “‘ Notes
for Contributors’ at the end of this number. The Editors cannot assume responsibility for the
loss of MSS in the mails.
Vou. I, No. 8. — Copyright, 1926, by the Mediaesal Academy af America. — Paintev me U.S. A.
Entered as second-class matter, May 8, 1926, at the Post Office at Boston, Mass., under the Act of August 24, 1912.
—_——
- _ ———e—E_
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
Ae
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FIRST ELECTION
OF FELLOWS
T THE first meeting of the Council of the Mrprarvat Aca-
DEMY OF AMERICA, held on April 23, 1926, thirty Fellows were
elected. At the first meeting of the Fellows, held April 24, 1926,
three more nominations were made, and the persons nominated
were elected by postal ballot. The list of the thirty-three Fellows
is as follows:
Puitire SCHUYLER ALLEN
CHARLEs Henry BEESON
CARLETON Brown
JoHN NicHoLas BRown
GEORGE LInNcoLN BuRR
CHaARLEs Upson CLarK
GEORGE RaLEIGH CoFFMAN
ALBERT STANBOROUGH CooK
Rautpa Apams Cram
Gorpon Hau GEROULD
CHARLES Hatt GRANDGENT
NorMaAN Scott Brien Gras
CrarLeEs Homer Haskins
GEORGE LyMAN KITTREDGE
Eu1as AVERY LowE
JoHN Livincston Lowes
JoHN MatTrHEws MANLy
CuHarLes Rurvus Morery
Dana CarRL_ton Munro
NELLIE NEILSON
Louis JoHN PaETtow
GEORGE ARTHUR PLIMPTON
ARTHUR KINGSLEY PorTER
EDWARD KENNARD Ranp
FRED Norris Rosinson
RosBeErRT KiILBuRN Roor
Rt. Rev. Toomas JosepH SHAHAN
JOHN STRONG Perry TATLOCK
Henry Ossorn Taylor
JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
Lynn THORNDIKE
JAMES FIELD WILLARD
Kart Youna
At the meeting of the Fellows held on April 24, 1926, the follow-
ing fifteen Corresponding Fellows were nominated, and they were
subsequently elected by postal ballot:
JOHANNES Botte (Germany)
Hipro.uitE DELERAYE (Belgium)
CuHar_es Dieu (France)
Cardinal Franz Eure (Italy)
MonTaGuE Ruaopes JAMEs (Gt Britain)
Paut LEHMANN (Germany)
Waxiace Martin Linpsay (Gt Britain)
FERDINAND Lor (France)
Ram6n MENENDEz Pipat (Spain)
Mgr. Giovanni MERCATI (Italy)
Kar Nyrop (Denmark)
HeEnr1 Omont (France)
ReoeinaLp Lane Poo.e (Gt Britain)
Pro Rasa (Italy)
MaAovRICE DE Wu LF (Belgium)
251
252 Furst Election of Fellows
The Board of Fellows believes that, in determining the remaining
seventeen Fellows, special consideration should be paid to certain
fields of mediaeval scholarship thus far inadequately represented,
particularly Romance, Germanic, and Oriental philology, and By-
zantine studies. The Secretary of the Board of Fellows, George
Raleigh Coffman, 1191 Boylston Street, Boston, Mass., will welcome
nominations of either the national or the Corresponding Fellows to
be elected in the course of the coming year. In this connection, at-
tention is directed to the following section of By-Law 9 of the
AcapEmyY, to the effect that vacancies in the number of the Fellows
*“‘may be filled by election by the Fellows from nominations made
by at least nine members of the Corporation, the assent of two
thirds of the then existing Fellows being necessary for election.”
MEDIAEVAL GLOOM AND MEDIAEVAL
UNIFORMITY?
fe TuIs cheerful and variegated age of ours, it is a rash undertaking
to establish an AcaprEmy devoted to so gloomy and so uniform
a period as the Middle Ages. Why busy ourselves with an anti-
quated culture? Why survey that drab and gloomy stretch of
monotonous years in which everybody murmured “memento mort”’
morning, noon, and night? Let me quote something typical:
Consider now how slender a thing is fame and glory. For thou hast
learnt by astronomical demonstrations that the compass of the whole earth
compared to the scope of heaven is no bigger than a pin’s point, which is
as much as to say that, if it be conferred with the greatness of the celestial
sphere, it hath no bigness at all. And of this so small a region in the world
only the fourth part is inhabited by living creatures known to us. From
which fourth part, if thou takest away in imagination the seas, the marsh
grounds, and all other desert places, there will scarcely be left any room at
all for men to inhabit. Wherefore, enclosed and shut up in this smallest
point of that other point, dost thou think of extending thy fame and en-
larging thy name? But thou dost imagine that thou makest thyself im-
mortal when thou castest thine eyes upon future fame. Whereas, if thou
weighest attentively the infinite spaces of eternity, what cause hast thou to
rejoice at the prolonging of thy name? For if we compare the stay of one
moment with ten thousand years, since both be limited, they have some
proportions, though it be but very small. But this number of years, how
oft so ever it be multiplied, is no way comparable to endless eternity. So
when thou diest, no fame shall ever make thee known. But if thou thinkest
that life is prolonged by the breath of thy dead name, when length of days
shall take this too away, a second death then awaits thee.
Here are words that most modern readers would agree spring
from the heart of the Middle Ages. What is more mediaeval than
the contempt of earthly fame, the despite of human joy, the per-
petual gazing at eternity, the perpetual memento mori? The sus-
picion is correct. The passage comes from Chaucer — I have pre-
sented it in more modern language — and he has turned the idea into
1 Presidential Address, delivered by Edward Kennard Rand at the first meeting of the
MEpIAEvAL ACADEMY oF AMERica, April 24, 1926. A report of this meeting will appear
in the October issue.
253
254 Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
poetry, too. Troilus, after he is slain by Achilles, mounts, or rather
his ‘light ghost’ mounts, to the hollowness of the seventh sphere,
where he hears the celestial harmonies,
And doun from thennes faste he gan avyse
This lite] spot of erthe, that with the see
Enbraced is, and fully gan despyse
This wrecched world, and held al vanitee
To respect of the pleyn felicitee
That is in hevene above...
Now let us turn to something more human and cheerful; let the
preacher give place to a poet, a poet whose delight is in nature and
the immediate present. I translate a little work entitled
BATTLE OF THE LILY AND THE ROSE
THE Port SPEAKS
The cycles of the seasons were running their fourfold course, and spring
was covering the earth with gay bespangled robe, when a debate began
between the milk-white lily and the chaplet-gracing rose. First the rose,
opening. her radiant lips, aroused discussion.
RosE
Crimson gives sovereignty, crimson is the glory of kings; kings hold
white a cheap and dingy hue. White is the wretched color of sick and pining
cheeks; crimson the shade to which the world pays homage.
LiLy
Me does the gold-tressed glory of the earth, the fair Apollo, love, and
clothes his head with my snow-white honor. Why, Rose, dost make such
argument, smeared with the dye of shame, conscious of guilt? Does not thy
face blush for it?
RosE
I am the sister of the Dawn, well known to gods on high. And Phoebus
loves me, too. I am the messenger of ruddy Phoebe; the Day-star runneth
merrily before my face. *Tis the tender grace of a maiden’s countenance
that makes me blush. (There is a suggestion that Lily is a bit passée.)
Lity (catching the point in the innuendo and getting exceeding mad)
Why swell and bluster with such blurting talk, for which thou art well
given the penalty of an eternal wound? For thy diadem is pierced with
sharpest thorns. Ah me! How piteously is the rose-bed girt with a bush
of thorn!
Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity 255
Ross (taking care not to change the subject)
But what truths have thy words effaced, thou sere antiquity! What
thou wouldst call reproaches, are all replete with praise. The all-creating
Lord has hedged me with sharp thorns; and he has fortified the rose’s face
with a fine shelter. (The implication is that Lily’s face needs no shelter.)
Lity
An aureole of beauty crowns my seemly head, nor am I cruelly hedged
in with a thorn-garland, but milk in sweet profusion flows from my snowy
breasts.
THE Poet
Then was young Spring a-loitering in the flowery field. A covering he
wore embroidered with green grass; with open nostrils he sniffed the fra-
grant balsam; his lordly bead shone with the glory of a flowery chaplet.
SPRING
Dear children of me, quoth he, why, pray, this disputation? Know that
ye are twin sisters of the parent earth. Is it right for sisters to quarrel with
such pride? Be still, thou beauteous rose (Rose was evidently making
ready to answer Lily’s last retort). Thy glory shines throughout the
earth; but leave the queenly lily, too, her radiant, royal sceptre. "Tis thus
your seemly beauty gains you eternal praise. Let the swelling rose, emblem
of inodesty, grow in our gardens, and grow ye, too, ye splendid lilies, with
faces like the Sun. Thou, Rose, give from thy chaplet the glowing pall to
martyrs, and Lily, grace the well-robed troupes of virgins.
THE Port
And then their father Spring, giving the twain the kiss of peace, recon-
ciled those gentle maidens as a father should. Then did the lily give welcome
kisses to her glowing sister, while she, in play, bit the other’s lips with her
thorns. The lily laughed at the ruse of the spring-born maiden, and gave
the thirsty rose a drink of her ambrosial milk. But the rose shed gifts, her
crimson blossoms, into the lily’s cup, and heaped on her snow-white sister
this wealth of recompense.
We know where we are now. The shadows of the Middle Ages
have cleared, and sensuous delight, the healthy joy of living has
returned with the Renaissance. That is, at any rate, what a critic
of the Middle Ages might well infer from the texts that I have read.
But hold! Let us examine the images and superscriptions of the
authors. The first passage 7s from Chaucer — from Chaucer’s trans-
lation of a work that precedes the Middle Ages, the Consolation of
256 Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
Philosophy by Boethius. “Ah yes,” says the critic at once, “but
Boethius was not only the last of the Romans, but the prophet of
the Middle Ages; we have often pointed out that the sombre and
romantic tone of the words you have read is a harbinger of the age
to come.”” Then let me add that this passage is also an echo of a
famous sermon by a Roman consul not generally suspected of the
despite of earthly fame. “As Marcus Tullius also says,” Boethius
remarks, and gives his source away.
At the end of his work on the State, Cicero, in emulation of his
master Plato, sets forth his meaning pictorially, in a dream. Scipio
dreams that he rises above this “‘litel spot of erthe,” or, as Dante
has it, “this little threshing-floor that makes us all so fierce,” that
he joins the elder Scipio, who explains to him the nine spheres of the
universe, teaches him to hear their music, and to note the meanness
of the smallest of them, the earth, which, having no part in the uni-
versal chorus and the universal procession through space, sticks in
the centre of the system and acts as a receptacle for matter, the
heaviest of all the elements, the dregs of the world. Modern scientists
have sometimes objected to the Ptolemaic astronomy as a breeder
of human conceit; persons who are located at the hub of a universe,
or a part of a universe, now and then acquire an ego-centric point of
view. But such was not the effect of the Ptolemaic system on those
who accepted either mediaeval theology or ancient science. Nothing
could be humbler than the estimate of this little globe that the Mid-
dle Ages took over from antiquity. Thus Scipio, as he looks down,
becomes ashamed of the Roman Empire, which occupies a tiny point
in the tiny earth. What indeed is the significance of earthly fame?
It is swallowed up in a second death:
Sermo autem omnis ille et angustiis cingitur iis regionum quas uides,
nec umquam de ullo perennis fuit; et obruitur hominum interitu et obliuione
posteritatis exstinguitur.
There is something solemn and liturgical and—mediaeval, shall
we say?—in these words of Marcus Tully. I can somehow hear this
stately Latin chanted antiphonally at Vespers in the cathedral of
Chartres. Cicero finishes his vision by exhorting the statesman and
the sage to aspire to the immortality with which the great are re-
— Wt
Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity 257
warded; they should meditate on death, since philosophy, as our
author, after Socrates, remarks, is a meditation on death. Memento
mort.
The Dream of Scipio is the only unified part of Cicero’s De Re-
publica that has come down to us through the ages. It was preserved
entire because in the fifth century of our era it was made the subject
of a subtle commentary by Macrobius, a Neo-platonic scholar much
interested in dreams and in the mystic interpretation of numbers.
The Dream of Scipio, glossed by Macrobius, became one of the hun-
dred best books of the Middle Ages. Chaucer knew it well; Chaun-
ticleer quotes it to his wife; Guillaume de Lorris begins the Romance
of the Rose by paying homage to Macrobius as the great authority
on dreams. The plan of the Paradiso may be traced in its general
outline to no more complicated a source than Cicero’s facts, Macro-
bius’s gloss, and Dante’s imagination, however many details may
have been suggested by Aristotle and the Arab philosophers and
scholastic churchmen who followed him. If young and old in the
Middle Ages saw visions and dreamed dreams, if they sometimes
looked gloomily on the pleasures of the present, it was partly because
they read the work of Cicero, glossed by Macrobius. They might
have felt far less dismal had they not been so well read in the great
Classics of antiquity. For the Greeks were not as they sometimes
are pictured,— happy children playing under a cloudless sky, — nor
was the typical Roman mood a stolid satisfaction in laws and roads
and conquests. There are multitudes of attitudes and emotions, and
there is plenty of sombre pessimism in the literatures of both nations.
What doth not ruinous time degrade? The age of our sires, worse than
that of theirs, has brought us forth more sinful still, soon to give birth to
offspring yet more vicious.
This is from the genial Horace, who, imbibing something of his
bitterness from Hesiod, thus closes a series of odes addressed to
the rising generation and intended to hold aloft for their benefit the
great guiding principles of life. Juvenal, correcting Horace, declares
that his age is so bad that nothing in times to come could exceed its
badness. Plato states that the body is but the prison-house of the
soul. Cicero tells us of a lecturer on philosophy in general, and
ier
val
he
258 Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
Plato’s doctrine of immortality in particular, who put the case so
effectively that his pupils systematically committed suicide. Lucre-
tius, who with a different astronomical system agrees with Cicero
in his belittling view of the earth, presents an argument against
Plato and the immortality of the soul. In it, he makes the most
discouraging remark that I have ever heard — “‘All things are
always the same.” Of course when St Thomas 4 Kempis utters pre-
cisely the same words, one exclaims, “How typical!” Still, as we
think over such sentiments of the ancients, we are inclined to favor
Mr Chesterton — were we makers of the paradox and not plain
historians of fact — when he vows that the gay and sprightly vir-
tues are the Christian, the glum and sombre, the Pagan.
But one learned critic of the Middle Ages — I regret to say that
he is a Frenchman — declares that in those days one did not read
for pleasure: ‘‘On devait se mettre en état de comprendre et de goiter
Vargile’’—(it is safely edifying to understand Virgil, to appreciate his
observance of the critic’s law, but—) “une fois arrivé la, se bien garder
d’y prendre plavsir” —thus far and no farther—not far enough to en-
joy. Lam sorry, but I cannot help remembering a mediaeval definition
of man that George Meredith, the Master of Comedy, repeats in other
words. Transmitted from the Ancients by Boethius, it ran through
mediaeval philosophy from John the Scot to Dante. They all define
man as an ‘animal capable of laughter.’ Says Dante: “Sz homo est,
est ristbilis.”” ‘There is plenty to show, furthermore, that mediaeval
man not only was theoretically constructed to laugh, but actually
performed the operation, even when reading a Pagan author of a
somewhat light and frivolous character.
A certain monk of the eleventh century, who had spent some of
his time in Verona, speaks of getting through Juvenal, which he
found pretty hard without a commentary, and then of turning with
relief to Terence. I must add that, like Freshmen sometimes, he
spells Terence’s name with two 7’s, save that he can plead the excuse
of poetical licence, as Freshinen generally cannot.
Denique Terrenti post dulcia legimus acta
Saepe suis uerbis iocundis atque facetis
Nos quae fecerunt risum depromere magnum.
. ay -
Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity 259
‘Then would I read old Terence’s sweet plays,
His jolly episodes and witty phrase
Which soothed my soul and laughter long did raise.’
| In another manuscript of Terence, just before the Eunuchus, which
| is not one of the plays most frequently read in modern schools, the
scribe posts a kind of advertisement of what is to come.
Dulcia quae docuit finctor nunc respice verba
Mulceat ut dulcis mentem conscriptio heri.
“Read the sweet tale that gentle Terence wrought
To charm the reader and beguile his thought.’
It is interesting to see how often in these pieces Terence is called
dulcis — even to the point of tautology. If an anti-mediaevalist
feels like suggesting that the present couplet is an ancient affair
blindly copied by a mediaeval scribe (who felt edified but not elated
during the process), I can point out in it a false quantity that the
critic will at once admit could have been perpetrated only in the
Middle Ages. Terence was in fact so popular a writer in the dark
period that the gentle nun Hrotsvitha of the convent of Gandersheim
thought that something ought to be done about it. She had written
certain works of a saintly and epic caste, which proved not so popular
among her mates as the dubious plays of Terence. She therefore
sought to replace these with six comoediae Terentianae of her own
composition. This title somewhat resembles the term Holy Roman
Empire as interpreted by Voltaire; the plays in general suggest
neither comedy nor Terence. Still, there is among them one comic
scene, that leads me to suspect that the good nun’s indignation was
flavored with a wee bit of jealousy, and a wee bit of hope that she
might beat the evil one at his own game.
I am not going to amass all the available evidence that man was
an animal risus capaz in the Middle Ages. We shal] find plenty to
cheer us if we will but look, and shall understand why Dante, at the
end of his treatise on Monarchy, could recognize the existence of a
mortalis felicitas, of which the Empire is somehow the symbol, as
well as that zmmortalis felicitas, typified by the Church. Why, me-
diaeval men and women could even go to divine service gaily! In an
260 Mediaeral Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
ideal plan of the monastery at St Gall, drawn about 820 a.p., showing
a much more sumptuous establishment than monasteries are popu-
larly supposed to be, the various parts of the monastic estate are
labelled with neat Latin verses, describing their attractions. The
path leading to the western portal of the Church bears the words:
Omnibus ad sanctum turbis patet huc via templum
Quo sua vota ferant, unde hilares redeant.
‘Churchward the faithful throng
Here wend their way along,
Their pious vows to pay
And go back blithe and gay.’
But now, what of our other text, the Battle of the Lily and the Rose?
No doubt about the joyousness of that piece. Here speaks pastoral
delight, the delight in spring and the fresh earth, also the scholar’s
delight, as you would see if I read the Latin verses, in dignifying his
own poetry with reminiscences of the Pagan writers of ancient
Rome. The voice is the voice of a humanist of the Renaissance,
but — the hand is the hand of Sedulius Scottus, who wrote in one
of the gloomiest times of the gloomy age, the last half of the ninth
century. Let the critic make of this fable what he will.
We all of us, I suppose, have passed through certain stages in our
appreciation of the past. We begin with an appreciation of ourselves,
of our own age. As the wise Arabian remarked, — and his remark
is recorded for us by a mediaeval writer,— there are three things in
which a man takes unfeigned delight, his own voice, his own poems,
and his own son. Consequently, we like our own times, and agree
with Moliére’s heroine that “‘les anciens, messieurs, sont les anciens,
et nous sommes les gens de maintenant!” — a sentiment which, curi-
ously, is borrowed from one of the ancients, yet a rather modern
ancient, the poet Ovid.
But next, as we live into writers or ages of the past, we wake up
to their modernity. We discover that the idea of woman suffrage
has been broached before our era, and we exclaim, ‘‘How modern is
Aristophanes!” An ancient poet, in unforgettable verses, sings of a
smiling child, and we find Homer modern. We therefore commend
, ee
Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity 261
Homer and Aristophanes for their sudden acquisition of virtue.
Their light has been obscured by misunderstandings, and we are the
prophets to hold it before the public that has not known. We be-
come patrons of antiquity. Lastly, as we enlarge our acquaintance
with the writers of old, we see in them here and there a keenness of
thought and a perfection of fornr that surpass what is done to-day.
At that moment, our point of view is once for all reversed. Instead
of congratulating the ancients on their modernity, we congratulate
ourselves on the widening power of our historical imagination. We
swing from a position in a Ptolemaic and ego-centric astronomy to
our proper function of revolving about the sun. The heir of all the
ages in the foremost files of time falls in with the rear rank, when he
looks at human achievement not from the present moment, but
from a point of view admittedly mediaeval, sub specie aeternitatis.
In brief, he has grown from childhood into man’s estate, and has
become a citizen of the universe. I cannot refrain from quoting
Professor Kittredge in his golden little book on Chaucer — although
‘you doubtless have learned the passage by heart:
There is no great harm in the air of patronage with which our times,
in their self-satisfied enlightenment, address the great who were of old;
but we do use droll adjectives! If these great ancients show the simplicity
of perfect art, we call them naif, particularly when their irony eludes us;
if they tickle our fancy, they are quaint; if we find them altogether satis-
factory, both in form and substance, we adorn them with the epithet
modern, which we somehow think is a superlative of eminence. Naif,
quaint, modern, — a singular vocabulary!... For it is we that are naif;
quaintness is incompatible with art; and as for modernity, what we mistake
for that, is the everlasting truth, the enduring quality that consists in
conformity to changeless human nature. “The ancients,” said a wise man,
“never understood that they were ancients.”
I have referred to Ovid as one of those ancients who were not
aware of their antiquity. Ovid’s contemporaries, Horace and Virgil,
were also of that number. Now the Middle Ages were not more
aware that they were “middle” than the Augustan Age thought
itself ancient. When the word “‘modern,” modernus, was coined, —
it was on the eve of the Middle Ages,— people thought it applied
to their own day and generation. It is peculiarly discourteous on our
262 Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
part to crib the term from its inventors and relegate them — not to
antiquity, too dignified an epoch for them, but to a chronological
and spiritual mediocrity. For all that, they were modern, owing,
for one reason, to what seems to present-day critics their childish
sense of history. For history was something plastic to the mediaeval
imagination. The mind of man cannot be fixed at all points, and at
some points it demands fixity. To-day, we are not fixed in theology,
which to the mediaeval mind was the most important consideration
of all, the top-most science from which all the other sciences flowed.
We are fixed, or think we are fixed, in history. The historical spirit,
the sense of evolving causes, is our guide; we make past ages know
their place. Our feeling for art, by becoming historical, has, we
assert, been vastly refined. Take the Venus of Melos. Once we
enjoyed it for its absolute beauty; there was no cloud of suspicion
that it might be other than beautiful. But nowadays French and
German archaeologists dispute the date of the statue. The French
in general claim it for the early fourth century B.c.; some Germans
hold that it is a product of the Hellenistic age. The dreadful triumph
of the latter will be, if they prove their case, that we cannot worship
this Venus as much as we should like to, because she is not of the
best period. Far be it from me to deride the historical spirit, which
has taught us many things; but oh how it has interfered with the
blissfulness of our ignorance!
Now the Middle Ages were interested in history, but rather in
the full sweep of events than in isolated details. The typical his-
torian wrote his magnum opus, not on land-tenure under the Mero-
vingian kings, but on the human chronicle from Adam to his own
generation. Vincent of Beauvais was such an historian. He made
what he fittingly called Speculum Historrale, a “mirror of history” —
a precursor of that magazine which is the official organ of our
AcapEmy. If one wished to see history, one could find its clear and
simple reflection in the mirror. Nowadays, we sometimes see
through a magnifying glass, darkly and scientifically, not crudely
and clearly, in a mirror. For us, history is fixed; we are trying mi-
nutely to observe it. For the mediaeval scholar, history is plastic;
he refashions it to suit the needs of his day. An eminent Italian
& —
Medtaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity 263
authority says, of what he calls the chaotic works of Vincent and his
tribe, that “‘they all speak of Caesar, of Arthur, of Tristan, of Alex-
ander, of Aristotle, of Saladin, of Charlemagne, of Merlin without
any sort of distinction and with equal gravity.” I like better
the way that Professor Lowes puts it in Convention and Revolt.
*“‘Anachronism,” he says, “was blithely accepted, and elevated to
a virtue; — the translation into the contemporary is complete.”
Anachronisms committed “with gravity” betray a lack of humor,
a leaden uniformity, and a dense ignorance of the past; but “‘blithely
accepted” they become synchronisms; that is conscious art, and
from Homer down one of the signs that poetic imagination is not
confined to time or space.
On a tapestry in the Chateau of Langeais near Tours, four
mounted knights are pictured — Samson, David, Julius Caesar, and
Godfrey of Bouillon. They are armed cap-a-je, all in the same style.
“How quaint!” observes the visitor. He ought to say ““How mod-
ern!” Instead of confining Samson, David and Caesar to their
proper epochs, the mediaeval artist invited them to cross the cen-
turies and join the troupe of Godfrey of Bouillon. When we see the
face of an Italian peasant woman sanctified as the Madonna in a
painting of Raphael, we comment not on the glaring anachronism,
but on the magical art. A work nearer to our times that hangs in
certain households is Hoffman’s painting of the boy Christ among
the doctors in the temple. An observer to-day would call it delight-
fully modern, or vulgarly modern, according to his liking for the
picture. A century hence, if it survives, it will neither offend foe nor
enrapture friend; like the startling novelties of all the ages, it will
have passed into the realm of the quaint.
There is another sort of moulding of the mass of history in which
the Middle Ages were engaged. Ancients of renown were made over
into other-world, as well as this-world characters. They became the
heroes of fairy-stories and romances; they lived in regions of magic
and themselves were masters of the art. Virgil and Alexander would
not recognize their reflections in the mediaeval mirror. Now some
of these marvellous tales eventually acquired the sanction of history,
just as the legendary exploits of the early kings of Rome were bed-
264 Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
rock fact for many a reader in the Augustan Age, and are, for us,
in this larger aspect, a part of Roman history. Vincent of Beauvais
turns his mirror on the life of Virgil. He gives a creditable account
of his poems, and even argues like a higher critic to-day that the
Culex and the Aetna must be spurious, some of his scientific ardor —
and this too is a modern trait — being prompted by the desire to
down the rival school of Orleans, which, like some benighted modern
scholars, accepted the minor poems as Virgil’s. But Vincent also
records among the facts of the poet’s life, the fables of his magical
powers, his ability to make a bronze fly that freed Naples from the
plague of actual flies, or to invent a marvellous block that kept
butcher’s meat fresh for six weeks, a miracle long since eclipsed by
the art of our modern butchers. Such anecdotes by Vincent’s time
had acquired standing. To their discoverers or inventors, however,
they must have made precisely the appeal that a fairy story of
Grimm makes to a mature imagination to-day. There was the fasci-
nation of the quaint; there was also the ability in the mediaeval
mind to distinguish Dichtung and Wahrheit, or the awareness that
the two had fused, as Livy said of the very beginnings of Roman
history, in an indistinguishable mass.
This attempt to accredit the mediaeval mind with the rudiments
of a critical sense, or a common sense, may seem so startling that
I will support it by a corollary. If writers and artists of the Middle
Ages were deliberately, not ignorantly, anachronistic in pulling up
antiquity into their own entourage, they should be able to reverse
this process, to provide current material with an ancient setting.
And this they did, deliberately, effecting a sort of historical novel
by a method less subtle than those by which Sir Walter Scott and
Walter Pater wrote themselves into the past, yet one of essentially
the same kind. Had I time to elaborate this point, I could show that
an Arabian or Hindoo subject, similar to the plot of the ““Thousand
and One Nights,” was given a new scene, laid in the Augustan Age,
with Virgil prominent among the dramatis personae, and that the
career of Judas Iscariot, an unpleasant theme in itself and still more
unpleasant in the popular tradition of the Middle Ages, was retold
with Classical colorings by some humanist of the twelfth century.
Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity 265
Such an undertaking, however crudely carried out, is conscious art;
it is the transcendence, not the obliviousness, of historical distinc-
tions.
In any case, history was plastic in the Middle Ages; the mind was
its own time. Philology was also plastic, and far from uniform. It
had a larger flavoring of imagination than philology to-day. In the
eighth and ninth centuries, when mediaeval scholarship began, it
usually was displayed in a commentary on some ancient author.
For to scholars of that time the association of author and commen-
tator was indissoluble. In the ancient books, texts of the former
wore embroideries of the latter. Virgil and Horace stalked into that
period with Servius and Donatus, Acron and Porphyro respectfully
carrying their trains. “Love me, love my commentator,’ the ancients
seemed to say. This interdependence of text and gloss had a curious
influence on the literature of the day. Contemporary poets thought
it proper that their own works should be expounded, in the good old
style, and if no one else thus honored them, they would write the
comment themselves. It therefore became natural to compose some-
thing that needed a gloss, something where more is meant than meets
the eye. There appeared a new purpose for allegory; for he can best
explain a mystery who invents it. The device of auto-exegesis thus
found a fertile soil for development. When Dante, in the Vita Nuova,
interprets his own sonnets, he is but continuing a practice which
started as early as the ninth century, and is amply illustrated in
poetry after his time, reaching an awful zenith in the preface to
Wordsworth’s Excursion. I would suggest, incidentally, that in the
present age where the art of self-advertising is no detriment to a
career, there may still be a place for auto-exegesis. If some writers
of free verse would accompany their productions with glosses in
plain prose — or perhaps in plain poetry — one might better appre-
ciate the daring of their art.
But to come more particularly to the plastic philology of the
Middle Ages, if it so happened that a great writer like Terence ap-
peared with no embroidery of glosses, some gallant savant, generally
an Irishman, sprang into the breach, and prepared a comment for
him. He gathered his information from the ancient authors, from
266 Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
commentators like Servius, and, failing these sources, from his own
imagination. The first commentary on Terence in the early ninth
century was composed in this fashion; for Eugraphius and Donatus
had not yet made their way across the Alps. The author, who
deserves something more than the title of Anonymus, found plenty
of puzzles to solve. For instance, the introductory notice of the
Eunuchus states that the music was written for right-hand pipes by
Flaccus the slave of Claudius — modos fecit Flaccus Claudi tebirs
duabus dextris. The commentator, not understanding that Claud
was a proper name, and thinking that it formed one word with the
tibi1s — clauditibi1s — concocted the following:
Claudi tibiis duabus dextris) quasi tympanum, genus musicum, dictum
eo quod unam altera breuiorem habeat fistulam ad similitudinem claudt.
Deziris dicit eo, quod tibiae auium, gruium uidelicet et ceterarum, dextrae
aptiores loco fistularum habentur et meliores.
‘A tympanum, a kind of musical instrument, so called because it has
one reed shorter than another in the fashion of a lame man. And he calls
it a “right” pipe, because the right shin-bone of birds, siz. of cranes, etc.
are held to be more suitable for pipes, and better.’
I will cite but one other specimen of plastic philology. Boethius,
in his Consolation of Philosophy, happens to mention Alcibiades as
a type of beauty; not much more information than that may be
gathered from the text. Some scholar of the early Middle Ages
calmly defines the unknown person as femina quaedam pulcherrima,
thereby starting Alcibiades on an entirely new and posthumous
career. John the Scot in the ninth century knew, I believe, and did
not contradict this note. It appears in the commentary on the
Consolation attributed to St Thomas Aquinas, and is apparently
responsible for “‘Archipiatre,” one of the beauties chronicled by
Villon in his Ballade des Dames du Temps Jadis.
There is a certain lure in plastic philology. How much time would
a scholar gain to-day — and how much more education — if instead
of looking up the “‘literature” of his subject and delving in the scho-
liasts of old (who sometimes rival their mediaeval brethren in plas-
ticity of information), he could extend his reading in the authors
themselves and apply to his problems the imagination that God had
——— > i
Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity 267
given him? And our students — instead of learning dull facts from
lexicons, why might they not contrive fresh lies for themselves?
They do it anyway. Not long ago, I asked my Freshmen to com-
ment on that ode of Horace in which he speaks of some stray cask
that, bottled in the days of the Marsian war, managed to escape the
prowling Spartacus. Among other things I learned from them that
the Marsi were a wild tribe of Hibernia whom Augustus had just
subdued and that the Spartacan wine is vinted in a small place in
Southern Italy. Seeing that we cannot eradicate this sort of thing,
why might we not, in mediaeval fashion, legitimize it? Perhaps if
imaginative lies were prescribed for them, our students might deviate
into fact.
It were easy, in like fashion, to illustrate the plasticity, the any-
thing-but-uniformity in mediaeval forms of verse, mediaeval science
and mediaeval geography. In conclusion, I would remark that even
mediaeval theology has its plastic elements. Not that the goal was
shifting — the conviction that the existence of ultimate theological
truth made the quest of the seeker real, and inspired his great at-
tempt. But the ultimate and revealed truth of theology was one
thing, and the human solution of the seeker another. His quest was
permanent and not static. One gets curious notions sometimes
about the philosophy of the Schoolmen, particularly from those who
have not read a ?ractatulus of their writings and who characterize
the main object of scholastic thought as the calculation of the number
of angels who could stand on the point of a pin — a quaestio subtilis,
I venture to think, that can nowhere be found in the works of St
Thomas Aquinas or his confederates.
I once heard a lecturer declare that the Middle Ages represented
a parenthesis in the history of human thought. Well, sometimes
the parenthesis, like the postscript of a fair lady’s letter, contains
the gist of the matter. Freedom of thought was not repressed in the
Middle Ages. It was fostered by the allegorical method of interpre-
tation, whereby the philosopher could connect his private theory with
established truth. “This, too, is what I mean,” he could say in the
phrase of Mephistopheles, “‘. . . nur mit ein Bischen anderen Worten.”
He was aware, likewise, that his instrument was human and fallible. -
268 Mediaeval Gloom and Mediaeval Uniformity
He did not desire to be heretical, any more than a scholar to-day —
desires to be unscientific. He did his best, in his own way, with
difficult problems, and if the result was not approved by authority,
he retracted his solution or took his medicine, sometimes with a wry
cast of countenance.
Abelard, in the twelfth century, did not relish his perfectly proper
- condemnation at the Council of Soissons. In all of his theological
writings, Abelard had been utterly free. He wrote a little work en-
titled Sic et Non — “Yes and No” — in which he had collected the
very divergent views of the Fathers on a number of theological
topics. In the charming preface to that work, he recalls that the
boy Christ had not laid down the law to the doctors in the temple,
but had asked and answered questions. “Ask and it shall be given
you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.”
There is a growth of mediaeval thinking; read deWulf. There are
diverse schools of mighty thinkers, from John the Scot to St Thomas
Aquinas.
I hope that these scattering remarks may help our friends without
to modify their idea of the Middle Ages as a stretch of gloom and
rigid uniformity. Call them dark, if you will; for the brightest light
save One that has ever shone on earth, the light of Greek letters, had
gone out. Call them middle; for there is no doubt that they inter-
vened between antiquity and modern times. Call them quaint; for
they have the glamor of another and a distant age. But it is particu-
larly our task, as the charter members of this new ACADEMY, to open
pleasant vistas to the Middle Ages, that the gloom of our modernists
may be tempered and the uniformity of their preconceptions re-
lieved. Naturally the Middle Ages are dark to those who cannot see.
As Martial observed to a contemporary pessimist:
Non nostri faciunt tibi quod tua tempora sordent,
Sed faciunt mores Caeciliane tui.
“You see our age arrayed in gloomy guise
Because you see it with your gloomy eyes.’
It is for us, then, to present the neighbors at our door with a tract
for the times, cheerful in temper and varied in appeal, taken from
a long-neglected chapter in the history of humanity.
LE LECTIONNAIRE DE SAINT-PERE!
Par Dom ANDRE WILMART, O.S.B.
E MANUSCRIT qui porte de nos jours le numéro 24 dans la Biblio-
théque de la Ville de Chartres est un admirable volume de 212
feuillets (290 mm. X 210 mm.). Son écriture, parfaitement régu-
liére, permet de le rapporter sans hésitation au neuviéme siécle; bien
plus, on ne saurait douter que cette calligraphie, connue par nombre
d’autres exemplaires semblables, ne soit celle de |’école de Tours,
telle que Léopold Delisle l’a définie le premier, en faisant remarquer
’emploi d’une semionciale particuliére et tout 4 fait caractéristique.
La décoration est assez simple; on note seulement sur les premiers
feuillets (fol. 2r et 3r) des encadrements géométriques de style
carolingien, peints en rouge, jaune, vert, et violet, et deux grandes
lettres ornées (fol. 2v et 4r). Le volume vient de ]’ancienne abbaye
de Saint-Pére-en-Vallée, sise 4 Chartres méme; vraisemblablement,
il a toujours appartenu & ce monastére, aprés sa composition. Le
texte nous offre, comme |’indique une préface plusieurs fois imprimée,
un Liber Comitis ou lectionnaire plénier destiné 4 la liturgie de la
messe, auquel une tradition sans valeur rattache le nom de saint
Jérdme. |
Tel est, rapidement décrit, le précieux manuscrit, dont un juge
excellent, Samuel Berger, a pu dire:? “De tous les manuscrits du
Lectionnaire de Charlemagne . . . le plus remarquable sans doute
est celui de Chartres . . .”’ et au sujet duquel j’aurais 4 présenter
plusieurs observations qui intéressent la liturgie, un peu l’histoire, et
surtout la paléographie.
I. La premiére observation est relative 4 la nature du recueil et,
par suite, 4 son identité littéraire. Une indication équivoque de
Jean Mabillon, mal entendue plus tard a Saint-Pére, a fait croire a
1 Que ce mémoire, offert & |’Académie des Sciences et Belles-Lettres et déja publié en
partie dans les Comptes rendus des séances de année 1925, pp. 290-298, a pu parattre ici en
entier est df a la permission si aimablement accordée du Professeur Cagnat, secrétaire perpé-
tuel de l’Académie. Ed.
2 Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siécles du moyen Age, Paris (1893), p. 188.
269
270 Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Peére
Samuel Berger que le manuscrit conservé 4 Chartres était conforme
au lectionnaire d’Alcuin; de ce prétendu fait, l’historien de la Vul-
gate a voulu tirer quelques conclusions touchant l’activité littéraire
du moine anglo-saxon passé au service du monarque réformateur.'
Mabillon rappelle en effet confusément, dans les Annales ordinis
S. Benedicti,? qu’Alcuin avait corrigé sur l’ordre de Charlemagne le
Comes ou lectionnaire plénier qui porte le nom de saint Jéréme, et
qu’un exemplaire de cette édition subsistait dans la bibliothéque
de Chartres. Il rapporte ensuite une notice qui se trouvait dans
le dit exemplaire post medium, mentionnant l’entreprise concertée
de Charlemagne et d’Alcuin pour mettre le recueil des lecons litur-
giques d’accord avec le sacramentaire de saint Grégoire.
Ce passage des Annales attira sans doute au dix-huitiéme siécle
attention d’un bibliothécaire de Saint-Pére, lequel, ne songeant
qu’a son magnifique volume carolingien, s’imagina que la référence
de Mabillon ne pouvait convenir 4 aucun autre manuscrit. Or le
texte cité ne s’y trouvait point, ni 4 lendroit indiqué ni ailleurs.
Que penser? L’aveugle et zélé bibliothécaire, poursuivant son idée,
supposa que la piéce a conviction avait disparu par la faute de ses
prédécesseurs lorsqu’on avait donné une nouvelle reliure au recueil.
De quoi, il dressa un acte qui se lit encore & la premiére page. Le
rédacteur du catalogue moderne ne put que reproduire la substance
de cette plainte; et, de méme, Samuel Berger indiqua de bonne foi
que le manuscrit était mutilé.
Il y a derriére tout ceci une simple confusion, dont Mabillon est
bien un peu l’auteur, et qui s’aggrava dans la suite.
Le manuscrit de Saint-Pére ne s’identifie point avec le manuscrit
de Chartres que Mabillon avait en vue et d’oi il a tiré la notice re-
lative 4 la correction d’Alcuin. Celui-ci appartenait 4 la Cathédrale
de Chartres. I] avait été publié,du moins pour ses parties essentielles,
en 1691 par le liturgiste romain Tommasi, plus tard cardinal.? I
subsiste par bonheur. On y reconnait sans la moindre difficulté le
1 Histoire de la Vulgate, etc., pp. 184 suiv.
2 II (Lucca, 1789), 305 (ad ann. 797).
® Antiqui Libri Missarum Romanae Ecclesiae . . . . Rome, pp. 1-26 (2° partie); autre
édition dans les Opera omnia du cardinal Giuseppe Maria Tommasi, (Rome 1747-54), V,
297-318.
aide eaten mgs POT
-* .
.-
:
=
“age
be”
oe
memes “ot
a
7
“s
we.
OA.
“
see ain
whet
»4
ates
“
ars
re
iE
. f 38
rer
oe
en.
yore
ieee
a
Photo. Yres Delaporte
MANUSCRIT DE CHarTRES No. 24 (32), fol. 2r
(290 mm. X 210-220 mm.)
Noter la signature du copiste dans les segments et dans les angles de l’encadrement
(lire de gauche a droite): AVDRADVS
4
-_-——_— —__
ve
-
e
~
.
Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére 971
témoin allégué plus ou moins clairement par Mabillon, en tout cas
le véritable exemplaire du Comes d’Alcuin. Car ce Comes ne com-
prenait que les lecons dites ‘épftres’ 4 |’exclusion des ‘évangiles.’
Le tort de Mabillon est d’avoir parlé de ce lectionnaire authentique
comme s’il était formé d’épitres et d’évangiles, selon le modéle du
Comes appelé hiéronymien. En ce sens, le bibliothécaire de Saint-
Pére était excusable de reconnaitre dans son manuscrit les traits
marqués par Mabillon, bien que la notice déclarant l’origine de la
collection fit absente. Cette notice fait défaut, parce qu’elle con-
cerne une autre espéce, et, de fait, on peut s’assurer que le manu-
scrit de Saint-Pére ne porte aucune trace de mutilation. Au con-
traire, l’actuel manuscrit lat. 9452 de la Bibliothéque Nationale
provient bien de Notre-Dame de Chartres — ‘la bibliothéque de
Chartres,’ rappelée par Mabillon. I] remonte au neuviéme siécle et
sans doute a la premiére moitié (820 au plus tét); il ne contient que
les épitres, et il porte a sa place, post medium (fol. 126r), la famense
notice révélatrice.
En résumé, le manuscrit de Chartres No. 24 ne doit pas étre con-
fondu avec le manuscrit de la Bibliothéque Nationale lat. 9452.1 IIs
remontent tous deux au neuviéme siécle; mais ils n’ont pas la méme
origine et correspondent a des types différents. L’un est un Comes
double, l’autre est un simple 6épistolier; ce dernier seul représente
’édition d’Alcuin, complétée en 816 par Hélisachar, le chancelier de
Louis le Pieux. Je ne saurais mieux les définir parallélement qu’en
citant le catalogue de Saint-Riquier rédigé en 831 et conservé par
Hariulf; ? car on trouve sur cette liste les deux espéces, et |’on peut
voir en méme temps quel fut leur succés respectif dans le monastére
méme d’Hélisachar, abbé de Saint-Riquier depuis 822:
. Lectionari epistolarum et euangeliorum mizxtim et ordinate
composii: V.
. Lectionarius plenarius a supradicto Albino ordinatus: I.
II. Ma deuxiéme remarque porte sur le nom du copiste auquel
nous devons le manuscrit de Saint-Pére.
1 Je dois dire ici que le premier, D. G. Morin, a indiqué cette confusion; voir Revue
Bénédictine, X (1893), 437.
2 Chronique de l’ Abbaye de Saint-Riquier, ed. F. Lot (Paris, 1894), p. 98.
272 Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére
Personne, je crois, n’a encore noté que le précieux ouvrage a été
signé par son auteur.! Dans |’un des encadrements géométriques
qui ornent les premiers feuillets, on lit, de gauche 4 droite, disposées
4 l’intérieur des segments que forment en se coupant un cercle et
un carré, des lettres capitales, toutes menues, qui composent le nom
suivant:
| AVDR.ADV.S
La décoration du volume étant réduite pour le reste 4 fort peu de
chose, ce nom ne peut étre que celui du copiste, et les ornements des
premiers feuillets seront aussi son ceuvre.
Le rédacteur du manuscrit de Chartres No. 24 s’appelait donc Au-
dradus. Ce nom d’origine germanique, sans étre rare,” n’est pas non
plus trés commun. A |’époque carolingienne, par exemple, les synodes
ne l’offrent jamais, et pas davantage durant les siécles précédents;
nous serions fort embarrassés, cependant, pour découvrir le person-
nage réel auquel il appartient dans la circonstance, si |’écriture du
lectionnaire n’était par bonheur un indice de provenance indubitable.
J’ai déja rappelé que le style graphique est, au jugement des gens
du métier, celui qui fut créé & Tours vers Je commencement du
neuviéme siécle, peut-étre avant la mort d’Alcuin (804), et dont les
plus parfaits produits se placent au commencement du régne de
Charles le Chauve, entre les années 840 et 850; telle la fameuse
Bible dite de Charles le Chauve ou du comte Vivien (notre manu-
scrit No. 1 du fonds latin de la Bibliothéque Nationale), tels encore
les Evangiles dits de Lothaire (No. 266 du méme fonds).
Or, un document du plus haut prix, qui a déja rendu d’innom-
brables services aux historiens, nous fait connaitre la communauté
de Saint-Martin de Tours — Fratres de Turonis — au temps de
Pabbé Frédugise, disciple et second successeur (807-834) d’Alcuin.®
Sur cette liste de 219 noms, on trouve en effet un Audradus, qui est
le 54° du réle. On ne peut donc raisonnablement douter que cet
1 J’ai A remercier spécialement M. ]’Abbé Yves Delaporte, archiviste du diocése de
Chartres, qui a bien voulu appeler mon attention sur ce détail et, en outre, m’a mis en mains
plusieurs photographies du manuscrit, dont cinq se trouvent réproduites ici.
2 Cf. E. Foérstemann, Altdeutsches Namenbuch, I (1900), 99 suiv.: Audorat, Audrada
(racine Auda).
3 Libri confraternitatum Sancti Galli Augiensis Fabariensis, éd. P. Piper (Mon. Germ. Hist.,
1884), 14, 235.
Le Lectuonnaire de Saint-Pére 273
Audradus, religieux (ou chanoine) de Saint-Martin pendant le
gouvernement de Frédugise, en soit le méme Audradus qui a transcrit
les legons du recueil de Saint-Pére, selon les procédés usités & Tours
durant cette période.
Récemment, le Professeur E. K. Rand de Harvard, a montré
par des arguments extrémement ingénieux, et non moins sérieux,
que la nomenclature des Fratres de Turonzs avait df étre fixée vers
les années 818-820, et qu’elle représentait, en toute vraisemblance,
ordre de la communauté 4 cette date, autrement dit la séniorité.!
Audradus, mentionné cinquante-quatriéme, comptait donc parmi
les anciens du monastére et dewait avoir atteint déja la maturité en
820. Selon les calculs de M. Rand, les sept copistes tourangeaux —
pareillement identifiés —du célébre manuscrit de Tite-Live (Regi-
nensis 762), pouvaient avoir vers 820 de cinquante 4 soixante ans,
comme ils se classent tous entre le no. 42 et le no. 77. II faut tenir
compte, nécessairement, d’une certaine marge. Tous les fréres
n’avaient pas le méme Age, lors de leur entrée 4 Saint-Martin.
Quelques-uns avaient pu étre agrégés, étant encore fort jeunes;
d’autres, plus Agés; et par conséquent, les plus jeunes pouvaient
devancer leurs ainés sur la liste. Quoi qu’il en soit, il parait sage
d’admettre qu’en 820, si telle est la date du réle adressé 4 Saint-Gall,
Audradus avait au moins une quarantaine d’années.
‘Ceci, d’ailleurs, n’est pas en rapport immédiat avec la date méme
du lectionnaire, Avant de discuter de quelque maniére cette date,
il est opportun de faire plus ample connaissance avec Audradus. Ce
sera l’objet d’une nouvelle remarque.
III. Des fragments nous sont parvenus d’un curieux ouvrage du
neuviéme siécle, formé, dans son état premier, de poémes et de
morceaux en prose—treize au total — dont l’ordre authentique n’a pu
étre établi d’une maniére sfre que vers la fin du siécle dernier, grace
4& un manuscrit de Cava.? Cette collection porte, dans histoire
littéraire, le nom d’Audradus Modicus, chorévéque de Sens.
1 E. K. Rand et G. Howe, “The Vatican Livy and the Script of Tours,” Memoirs of the
American Academy in Rome, I (1917), 25-34.
2 Cf. L. Traube, Mon. Germ. Hist., Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, ITI, i (1886), 67-121; ii
(1896), 739-745; et le méme dans sa dissertation ““O Roma nobilis. IX. Audradus Modicus”
dans les Abhandl. d. kgl. bayer. Akad. d. Wissensch., phil.-hist. K1., XIX (1891), 874-91.
274 Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Peére
Modicus est un sobriquet qui peut s’entendre de plusieurs facons,
mais aucun des manuscrits de la susdite collection ne l’atteste. Il
figure seulement dans un titre factice, en téte de |’édition que nous
devons & André Duchesne (1636) des extraits en prose du douziéme
livre, ou Révélations.! Duchesne tenait son texte de Sirmond. Cet
exemplaire a depuis lors disparu complétement, et fort malen-
contreusement. Avec quelques citations recueillies par Aubri des
Trois-Fontaines en la premiére moitié du treiziéme siécle,? les
extraits de Duchesne sont tout ce qui reste de ces Révélations singu-
liéres, sorte d’autobiographie apocalyptique, beaucoup plus intéres-
sante pour l’historien que les parties en vers, mieux conservées.
Aubri appelle son témoin ‘Audradus’ tout uniment. Audradus
lui-méme, dans la dédicace qu’il fit de son ceuvre au pape Léon IV
le 29 juin 849, se dénomme, selon la tradition de Cava: ego Audradus
omnium seruorum det minimus.* Cette formule ou d’autres analo-
ques ont pu donner lieu a l’interprétation “‘Modicus.” Mais il reste
que le nom véritable du personnage était “‘Audradus,”’ sans addi-
tion. J’ajoute tout de suite qu’en dehors de son livre, et bien qu'il
ait joué quelque réle sur la scéne politique au début du régne de
Charles le Chauve, notamment dans plusieurs synodes, aucune men-
tion n’est faite de lui nulle part, si ce n’est dans deux ou trois lignes
de la Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif au douziéme siécle. Et la
encore, il est désigné de la maniére la plus simple: ‘ “Jn illis diebus
erat Otradus huius urbis corepiscopus, uir honestus et per cuncta
laudabilis. . . .”
Les Révélations paraissent avoir été rédigées & deux reprises,
puisqu’elles faisaient déja partie du livre porté 4 Rome en 849, et
que les extraits qui nous ont été transmis s’étendent jusqu’a l’année
853.5 Ces extraits nous permettent de suivre la carriére d’Audradus
1 Historiae Francorum scriptores, II, 390-398; d’o Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des
Gaules, VII (1749), 289-298, et Migne, Patrologia Latina, CXV (1881), 23-S0.
2 Chronica Albrict monachi Trium Fontium, dans les Mon. Germ. Hist., Script., XXIII
(1874), 738-736.
3 Mon. Germ. Hist., P.L.A.C., II, ii, 740.
‘ Chronicon sancti Petri Viei Senorensis auct. Clario, éd. L. M. Duru, Biblioth2que historique
de’ Yonne, 11 (1868), 478.
§ Pour tout ceci, voir L. Traube, ““O Roma nobilis,” cit. supra, od tous les fragments
sont classés et réédits, pp. 378 suiv. (‘‘Die Fragmenta des Liber reuelationum’’).
Photo, Yees Delaporte
e
MANUSCRIT DE CHarTRES No. 24 (32), fol. 3r
(290 mm. * 210-220 mm.)
Digitized by Google
ene
=
‘
e
e+
ee.
t
cae
‘eu ©
ue
@.
@e
eC ig
Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Peére 275
depuis 840. Le point central est sa consécration comme chorévéque
de Sens (847). L’archévéque Wenilo, ou Ganelon (837-865), un
ancien chapelain de Charles le Chauve, appréciait sans doute les
talents et les vertus d’Audradus; probablement aussi désirait-il
ses lumiéres, au milieu des difficultés d’ordre politique qui résultérent
du passage de |’Empire. En novembre 849, les chorévéques furent
destitués en masse dans un concile parisien, au sujet duquel on n’a de
renseignements que dans les extraits. Audradus n’en continua pas
moins & sonner des conseils véhéments sous la forme de visions au
parti royal. On est fondé a croire qu’il mourut peu de temps aprés
853.
Un trait notable des visions d’Audradus est la place qu’y occupe
saint Martin, patron de la France. D’autre part, |’un des poémes
(vii® livre) est tout entier consacré 4 lillustre évéque de Tours. En
outre, nous remarquons dans le onziéme extrait des Révélations une
violente tirade contre le comte Vivien: “‘perfidus et nefandus Viura-
nus ... abbatem se glorians monasterit beati Martini et ceterorum”’;
la mort de Vivien est prédite; elle arriva en effet en 851, dans la
défaite que Charles le Chauve subit en Bretagne. Enfin, le dernier
extrait, selon |’ordre chronologique (853), nous apprend que, le roi
ayant manqué a sa promesse de ne pas nommer un abbé laique a
Saint-Martin de Tours et, de plus, ayant fait évéque de Chartres un
certain diacre Burchard auquel Audradus s’opposait, les normands
arrivérent de nouveau par la Loire, porteurs des chatiments divins;
qu’ils incendiérent le monastére de Saint-Martin et la basilique, et
que les clercs durent emporter les saintes reliques 4 Cormery.
Les fragments de Cava ont donné la clef de ces différents détails,
eu nous révélant qu’Audradus, avant de devenir chorévéque de
Sens, était un membre de la communauté de Saint-Martin de Tours.
L’auteur déclare lui-méme sa qualité dans un hexamétre de la
préface médiocrement élégant: !
De grege Martini magni ecclesiae Turonensis.
Dés lors, le cercle des identifications est clos: le copiste du
lectionnaire de Chartres, le frater de Turonis mentionné vers 820 sur
1 Mon. Germ. Hist., P.L.A.C., II, ii, 741.
276 Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére
la liste de Saint-Gall, l’exalté chorévéque de Sens, mort & Nevers vers
853, sont sirement un seul et méme personnage.
Reste a tirer les conséquences de ce fait particulier pour I|’histoire
de l’écriture carolingienne.
IV. J’indique tout d’abord qu’Audradus avait vraisemblable-
ment des relations avec |’église de Chartres, pour montrer tant
d’animosité envers Burchard, l’6véque nommé de 853. Le prédéces-
seur de ce Burchard s’appelait Helias (845-853). II se fit donner par
Charles le Chauve l’abbaye de Saint-Pére.1. Parmi les fratres de
Turonis énumérés en 820, il y a aussi un Helzas, un peu plus jeune
qu’Audradus, puisqu’i! porte le numéro 98. Si nous étions sfirs que
ce clerc de Tours recut le siége de Cliartres en 845, nous aurions
peut-étre la un moyen d’expliquer la présence 4 Saint-Pére du Comes
copié par Audradus. Je n’insiste pas sur cette conjecture, et j’en
viens 4 la question paléographique, considérablement plus délicate.
Les origines et les premiers développements de la calligraphie
carolingienne sont un sujet rempli d’obscurité. On a renoncé décidé-
ment 4 donner pour auteur 4 ce style soit Charlemagne soit Alcuin.
Un type d’écriture déja bien proche de la perfection est celui dont
on constate l’existence 4 Corbie au temps de |’abbé Maurdramnus
(772-780).2 Mais quelles influences s’exercérent alors 4 Corbie?
Quels modéles Maurdramnus proposa-t-il 4 ses moines? Puis, dans
quelle mesure ces essais, en se répandant, créérent-ils une mode?
N’y eut-il pas ailleurs, plus au nord et plus au sud, des efforts sem-
blables, qui déterminérent le triomphe da la réforme? Nous ne
pouvons répondre, en |’état des recherches, que par des hypothéses
encore incertaines, plus ou moins plausibles. Chaque scriptorium
carolingien, depuis Saint-Vaast et Saint-Amand jusqu’a Saint-Jean
de Lyon et Saint-Martial de Limoges, devra faire l’objet d’études
attentives, conduites par des spécialistes. L’Ecole de Tours est sans
doute le milieu graphique le plus riche qui s’offre 4 l’examen. Et
pourtant, |’on n’a pas réussi jusqu’a présent & classer la plupart des
1 Cf. B. Guérard, Cartulaire de Vabbaye de Saint-Pére de Chartres, I (1840), 9 suiv.
2 Cf. Ph. Lauer, ‘‘ La réforme carolingienne de ]’écriture latine et |’école calligraphique de
Corbie,”’ Mémoires présentés par divers savants a Académte des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,
XIII (1924), 417 suiv.
Be iis So wt 3
~*~
Nat ato
OM Dic
SOT
Photo, Yves Delaporte
MANvuscrit DE CHARTRES No. 24 (32), fol. 4r
(290 mm. X 210-220 mm.)
Digitized by Google
Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére 277
manuscrits qui en proviennent, faute de points de repére chronolo-
giques. MM. Rand et Howe ont fait naguére de suggestives
remarques, dans une monographie qui est un modéle du genre,! &
propos du Reginensis 762. Le Comes ou lectionnaire de Chartres ne
suffit pas 4 éclairer tout le sujet; mais il a le mérite, étant désormais
rapporté & un personnage connu, de fournir des indications assez
précises et, par suite, de permettre d’utiles rapprochements.
L’écriture du lectionnaire représente, sous toutes ses formes —
grande capitale, semionciale, minuscule courante — le style nette-
ment défini de Tours. Elle est l’expression déja parfaite de ce style:
aussi parfaite que |’écriture des bibles de Bamberg, de Berne, et de
Zurich, qui sont des bibles alcuiniennes typiques; un peu moins
parfaite seulement que |’écriture des magnifiques volumes dfs 4
Adalbaldus depuis |’année 834 environ. Pour se convaincre de ce
double fait, on n’a qu’a jeter un coup d’ceil sur les facsimilés de ces
célébres ouvrages, aprés avoir regardé le manuscrit de Chartres.
Or Audradus, en 820, appartient au groupe des plus anciens fréres
de la communanté martinienne. Lorsque Wenilo le choisit comme
auxiliaire en 847, il devait avoir dépassé notablement la soixantaine,
Pour dater strictement son manuscrit, nous n’avons aucun indice
direct avant 847. Mais il convient de faire observer que ce travail,
d’une régularité absolue, ne dénote pas la main d’un vieillard. I
importe bien davantage encore de noter, quelle que soit la date
réelle de la transcription, qu’un style de cette espéce, uniforme et
impeccable, n’a pas été improvisé. C’est celui-la méme qu’Audradus
a di apprendre dés son jeune age. Car il va de soi qu’un copiste
aussi habile n’a pas attendu d’étre arrivé 4 la quarantaine pour ap-
prendre 4 écrire. Cette conclusion est garantie par l’absence de tout
archaisme, de ces archaismes qu’on remarque, par exemple, dans
les différentes portions du Tite-Live. Audradus aura donc acquis
de trés bonne heure les habitudes de |’Ecole de Tours et n’en aura
jamais acquis d’autres; il n’a rien eu a désapprendre. Si je ne
m’abuse, ceci nous reporte aux environs de |’an 800, c’est 4 dire,
jusqu’au temps méme d’Alcuin. Le lectionnaire peut avoir été
copié plus ou moins tét, plus ou moins tard — mais plus vraisem-
1 Op. cit. supra, pp. 40-51.
278 Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére
blablement tét que tard — entre 800 et 830 ou 840; le style duquel
il procéde et qui représente celui de toute une école remonte 4a la
jeunesse du copiste.
Si on admet ce raisommement qui part des faits, les grandes
bibles de Bamberg, de Berne, et de Zurich, ainsi que les autres
manuscrits du méme type dont le Lectionnaire de Chartres fournit le
modéle et la norme, tous ces livres tourangeaux peuvent étre ramenés
au début du neuviéme siécle, tant que rien par ailleurs n’y fait ob-
stacle. En tout cas, le style lui-méme, dans son état déja parfait,
cdincide avec ce point de départ.!
1 Mais ceci n’empéchera pas que certains copistes de Tours aient pu employer, dans le
méme temps, un style plus lAche, mélé d’archaismes, comme celui dont le Reginensis est le
témoin. Je ne vois donc pas qu’il soit nécessaire de placer ce manuscrit, comme le voudraient
MM. Rand et Howe, avant la classe du Bernensis ou du lectionnaire de Chartres.
FARNBOROUGH,
England.
5. es
ie a Png a a et 3
a - - yi §,
oS Se eminam:
+ Pat - t aS us
~ >". ova yo 7” i,
Photo. Yves Delaporte
MANUSCRIT DE CHARTRES No. 24 (32), fol. 22v
(290 mm. X 210-229 mm.)
’ Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
LIBER DE COLORIBUS ILLUMINATORUM SIUE
PICTORUM FROM SLOANE MS. NO. 1754
Bry DANIEL VARNEY THOMPSON, Jr.
HE tract which is here published for the first time zn eztenso,
under the title Inber de Coloribus Illuminatorum siue Pictorum,
occupies fol. 142v—149r in the cyclopaedic Sloane MS. No. 1754, in the
British Museum.!
Of the provenance of the manuscript nothing definite is known.
The methods described are those of all Europe at the end of the
fourteenth century; only in the gilding recipes may we see certain
French characteristics, such as the use of unburnished leaf-gold as a
pigment. ?
The specific mention of three French cities, Rouen, Tours, and
Paris,’ in the Liber de Coloribus, makes it likely that the tract was
written in Northern Europe, and probable that it was written in
France. Further evidence may be seen in the use of such words as
warancia and gorma; above all, the text is in part closely related to
that of the Liber de Coloribus Faciendis of Pierre de St Omer (i.e.
Petrus de Sancto Audemaro).‘
The script of the book is pretty surely French. It is written in
a good clear hand, with no German characteristics, and obviously
dates from the fourteenth century.’ Professor Haskins, who has
kindly examined the rotograph copy, is of the opinion that it cannot
have been written much before the end of the fourteenth century;
it is, therefore, one of the latest of the purely mediaeval treatises
dealing with the technical art of illumination. It stands in a long
line of such manuscripts, beginning, in the Middle Ages, with the
Compositiones ad tingenda musiua, pelles et alia &c.° and continuing
! For an analysis of the contents of this MS., see S. Ayscough, A Catalogue of the [Sloane
MSS] preserved in the British Museum (2 vols. paged continuously), London, 1782, Index I
(following p. 909), sub ‘1754.’ The Liber de Coloribus is item No. 22 in the MS. (see op. cit.,
p. 381). 2 See § xvii infra. 3 See §§ vi, vii infra.
‘ Printed and translated by Merrifield, op. cit., I, 116 f.
5 So Hendrie, cit, infra, pp. 55, 99.
6 Bibliotheca capituli canonicorum Lucensium Arm., I, Cod. L., ed. L. A. Muratori, Ants-
quitates Italicae Medii Aeui, II, 364-387, Milan, No. 789.
280
Liber de Coloribus 981
through such diverse works as the Schedula Diuersarum Artium of
Theophilus (Rugerus),' the Mappae Clauicula,? the de Coloribus et
Artibus Romanorum of Heraclius,? and many others of later date.
For its subject matter the Liber de Coloribus is very largely de-
pendent upon these earlier sources, and its greatest interest for the
student of the technical manuscripts will perhaps be found to lie in
its form rather than in its content ; for comparison with the related
texts suggests interesting theories about the formation of these ex-
traordinary handbooks. No other extant work in the series shows
such complexity of origin as this at such an early date. (The great
compilation of Jehan LeBegue was made almost a century later.)
The author or, rather, the editor of the Liber de Coloribus has drawn
in some way upon no less than four earlier writers, and perhaps
more, for his material. Much of this borrowing undoubtedly took
place through intermediate sources which are lost to us; but, how-
ever broken the descent, this tract presents to us, in recognizable
form, about the year 1400, passages descended from the third book of
Heraclius, from the twelfth-century additions to the Mappae Clau-
cula, from the early thirteenth-century Addenda ‘ in the Harleian
manuscript of Theophilus, themselves almost wholly derived from
the Mappae Clauicula, and from the treatise of Pierre de St Omer.
1 Theophilus, Schedula Diuersarum Arttum, ed. R. Hendrie, An Essay upon Various
Arts ... by Theophilus ..., London, 1847. See Preface, pp. xxvi—vii for an account of the
MSS.
2 Archaeologia, XXXII (1847), 188, “Letter from Sir Th. Phillips . . . addressed to A. Way
. ». Communicating a transcript of a MS. treatise on the preparation of Pigments, and on
various processes of the Decorative Arts practised during the Middle Ages, written in the
twelfth century, and entitled Mappae Clauicula.”
* In the manuscripts of LeBegue, ed. Mrs Mary Philadelphia Merrifield, Original
treatises, dating from the xitth to xvitith centuries on the arts of painting ... preceded by a general
introduction (London, 1849), I, 182-257.
‘ Ed. Hendrie, op. cit., pp. [410] ff.; cf. Preface, pp. xxvi-vii.
282 Liber de Coloribus
(I)
Incipit Liber de Coloribus Illuminatorum siue Pictorum.
Uiride terrestre molendum est cum aqua sicut ceteri colores qui molendi
sunt, et postea ponendum est in quolibet cornu; et postquam aqua eius
siccata fuerit, ponenda est in eo glarea oui. In eo si ponas auripigmentum,
erit uiride croceum. Item si album ponas in eo, erit album uiride.
Uermiculum molendum est cum aqua et in cornu deinde mittendum; et,
postquam in cornu positum fuerit, implendum est cornu totum aqua, sicque
dimittendum; quousque aqua presit clara, eici. Et postquam eiecta
fuerit aqua, poni potest in eo glarea oui; et si(c) de eo inluminari. In eo si
misceas album, fiet roseus color.! Item si misceas in eo asorium Roma-
num, erit brunum. |
Minium molendum est cum aqua sicut uermiculum, et eiecta aqua de
cornu, siccabis, et ita ponenda est glarea oui, et sic ill(um)inatur ex eo. Hoc
minium cum nullo colore miscetur nisi cum albo et uermiculo.
Azorium bonum molitur cum aqua, et postea ponitur in cornu argenteo.
Talis, enim, nature est ut argentum uelit. Si non habes argenteum, quere
stagneum et in illo pone. Postquam autem prorsus siccata uel eiecta fuerit
aqua, pones glaream oui, sicque de illo illuminabis. Hoc cauere debes ne
glarea diu in azorio moretur, ne forte mutetur. Cum uolueris mixturam
facere de eo, poteris miscere in eo album de Apuleya. Item in azorio si
ponas indicum Romanun, fiet purpura, fiet nigrum. Item in azorio si ponas
brasilium, fiet purpureus color. Item pari mensura si misceas azorium et
brasilium et album de Apuleia, fiet faluus color.
Azorium Romanum siue indicum molitur cum aqua sicuti illud de quo
iam diximus. In hoc azorio Romano potes miscere album de Apuleya; item
in eo potes miscere auripigmentum et erit uiride croceum. Item si ponas
brasilium, erit purpureum.
Uiride de Gretia in uase eneo siue electro pone, et superfunde uinum ut
uiridescat. Liquorem h(u)ius liquoris in aliud cornu eneo, et in priore cornu
de quo liquorem extractisti pones iterum uinum, quo iterum maturato et
extracto; tertio pones uinum; sicque cessabis, et de uiride illo tunc operari
poteris. Hoc uiride si misceas cum albo? de Apuleya, erit album uiride,
ita tamen ut non sit glarea oui in albo sed uinum. Item si ponas in uiride
safranum, erit uiride croceum, ita tamen si cum uino safranum distem-
peratum fuerit. Adde, si uis, album.
Album de Apuleya molendum est cum aqua ut ceteri colores; et sicut
iam diximus, misceatur cum azorio solo, et iterum cum azorio et br(a)silio,
1 roseum colorem, cod. 2 abbo, cod.
‘¢i mie
ee AD EI Soi le
yy -
rase => by
ee Cs =F Ne gee Bp ~ty
-Mee at eat > tmeet Ae i 4
-_ yer wDrieH Pana ~~ Say
" "A
fa Ce
q53 a
- pane .
ae = a)
ece
Liber de Coloribus 283
[1]
This is the beginning of a Book on Colors for Illuminators and Painters.
Grind terre-verte with water, as you do the other colors which you
have to grind, and then put it into a convenient vessel. And when the
water has evaporated, add white of egg.! If you mix orpiment with it, it
will become a yellow-green; and if you mix white, a pale green.
Vermilion is ground with water, and then put into a vessel; and after it
has been placed in the vessel, the vessel is filled up with water, and so put
aside. And when the water becomes clear, pour it off. Then, when the
water has been poured off, the white of egg may be added; and so use it
for illuminating. If you mix it with white, it makes a rose-color; and if
you mix it with indigo, it makes brown.
You grind minium ? with water, like vermilion; and when the water has
been poured out of the vessel, you dry the color; and then add white of egg
to it, and use it for illuminating. This minium must not be mixed with any
other color, except with white and vermilion. |
Fine azure is ground in water, and then placed in a silver vessel, for it
is of such a nature that it desires silver. If you have no silver dish, seek
out a tin one, and place it in that. Then when the water has all evaporated
or been poured off, add white of egg, and so illuminate with it. You should
take care not to leave the white of egg too long in the azure, for it might go
bad. When you wish to vary it, you may add Apulian white. Or if you
add indigo to the azure, purple will be formed, a dark color. And if you
mix azure, brazil,* and Apulian white in equal proportions, it makes a
tawny color.
Roman azure, or indigo, is ground with water like the azure which we
have just discussed. You may mix Apulian white with this Roman azure;
and if you add orpiment to it, it will make a yellow-green. Or if you add
brazil, it will make purple.
Put verdigris in a dish made of bronze or electrum and pour wine upon
it, so that the wine may become green. Pour the liquid portion of this
mixture into another bronze vessel, and pour wine once more into the first
vessel from which you remove the liquid. And when this too has been
saturated and removed, add wine a third time. Then you may leave off,
1 White of egg, i.e. glaire, prepared from the natural albumen of the egg by beating it,
and allowing it to distil over night.
2 Minium is used throughout this translation for mintum rubeum, the tetroxide of lead,
Pb, Oy; mtnium album is translated “white lead.”
3 A color extracted from Brazil-wood. The spellings are various; see NED. s. ». ‘brazil’
and this text passim.
284 Liber de Coloribus
et iterum cum azorio Romano, necnon et ceteris potest misceri cum uiridi
terrestri.!
Album de ossibus moles sicut ceteros colores, et ideo pictoribus neces-
sarium quod cum auripigmento potest misceri, que mixtura de albo alio
fieri non potest.
Lignum brasilii accipitur, et cum quodam cultello deque radi in uase,
quod postquam totum radendo diminutum fuerit, superfunditur glarea
oui, et postquam superfusa fuerit et ceperit maturescere, ponatur i({n) eo
alumem iuxta mensuram brasilii. Hoc brasilium postquam maturatum
fuerit, emittendus est liquor et in quoquilla alia reseruandus; quod postquam
completum fuerit, iterum mittenda est glarea, et postquam maturata fuerit,
extrahenda. Quod tam diu fiat, quam diu brasilium illut incolorauerit.
Hoc etiam distemperator caueat ne brasilium absque alumine?® distemperet.
Alioquin a percameno brasilium totum paulatim decidet, sola glarea re-
manente. Igitur, quociens brasilium suum uoluerit facere clarum rubeum,
imponat alumen, sicque optimum erit. In brasilio si misceas album, fiet
roseus color. Item cum azorio, fiet purpureus color.
Auripigmentum molendum est cum ingenti labore, quod ut leuius cici-
usque expleatur, accipiendum est piperis molendinum, in quo teretur.
Quod postquam actum est, ponendum est in marmore et sic deinde cum
aqua molendum, et more aliorum colorum qui moliuntur aptandum. In
auripigmento potest misceri sicut prediximus azorium Romanum et uiride
terrestre et siquid aliud in prefatis mixturis reperiri poterit.
Ocrum si necessarium tibi fuerit in percameno, moles illud cum aqua
diligenter. Quo expleto, pones in eo fortem glarea(m) oui. Hoc scias, quod
ocrum non est necessarium nisi pictoribus murorum, excepto hoc, quod cum
litteram de auro facere uolueris, prius facies eam de ocro siue de gipso.
Safranum pones in coquilla et superfundes glaream oui, sicque matures-
cere dimittes et postea opus tuum ex eo facies. Item si uolueris, safranum
cum uino distemperare poteris. Safranum cum brasilio miscere poteris et
fiet rufus color, et siquid aliud in prefatis mixturis inueneris.
Sinoplum eodem modo moles quo et uermiculum. In eo potest misceri
parum albi et erit roseus color. Item si misceas cum albo parum sinopli,
erit carominius. Et iterum si misceas cum sinoplo auripigmentum,
uincente auripigmento, erit rufus color.
Cum uolueris distemperare gormam, accipies calcem noua(m) et fortem
et pones in uasculo; quod postquam peregeris, accipies uinum et aquam et
glaream oui pari mensura, et cum hiis distemperaberis calcem. Postea accipies
gormam, et cum hac distemperatura moles in marmore. Hoc expleto, cum
eadem distemperatura, de gorma illa poteris operari. Et hoc scias, quod
cum gorma uetus fuerit accipies aquam et pones in gormam, dimittesque
1 terrestriui, cod. 2 alumino, cod.
Liber de Coloribus 285
and use the green for your work. If you mix Apulian white with this green,
it will become pale green; but in this case, let the white be mixed not with
the white of egg, but with wine. And if you put saffron in the green, it will
become a yellow-green, provided that the saffron be tempered with wine.
Add white, if you wish.
Apulian white is to be ground with water, just like the other colors; and
as we have already observed, it should be mixed with azure alone and again
with azure and brazil, and again with Roman azure. It may also, moreover,
be mixed with terre-verte.
You grind bone-white like any other color; and thus it is indispensable
to painters on this account, namely, that it may be mixed with orpiment.
And such a mixture is impossible with any other white.
Take Brazil-wood and scrape it down with a knife into a dish. And
after it has all been reduced by scraping, cover it with white of egg. And
when it has steeped and commenced to grow ripe, let alum be added in pro-
portion to the quantity of the Brazil-wood. When the brazil has saturated
it, the liquid should be drawn off and kept in another vessel; and when this
has been done, add white of egg again, and when it has become saturated,
draw it off. And do this as often as the Brazil-wood continues to color it.
But let anyone who would prepare it beware of tempering brazil without
alum: for in that case the brazil will fade away from the parchment, little
by little, until only the medium remains. Therefore, whenever anyone
wishes to make his brazil a clear red, let him add alum, and then it will
be excellent. If you mix white with brazil, it makes rose-color; and with
azure it makes purple.
Grinding orpiment is most laborious, and in order to accomplish the
task more easily and quickly, you had better take a pepper-mill and grind
the orpiment in that. When you have done so, put it on a marble slab,
and then grind it with water, and treat it like the other colors which are
ground. As we have already stated, you may mix with the orpiment both
indigo and terre-verte, and anything else which may be found (i. e. pre-
scribed) in the recipes given above.
If you need ochre on parchment, grind it well with water, id when this
has becn done, add strong white of egg to it. But you must know that
ochre is needed only by painters of mural-decorations, except that, when
you wish to make a letter of gold, you lay it in first with fine ochre and
gypsum.
Put saffron in a dish, and pour the white of egg upon it, and then put it
aside to become saturated. Then do your work with it. Moreover, if you
choose, you may temper the saffron with wine. You may mix saffron with
brazil, and it will make a tawny color; and whatever else you find in the
recipes given above.
286 Liber de Coloribus
una die; et caue ne superhabundet aqua, sed cum tali mensura aquam
pone, ut tantummodo humorem aque senciat; sicque recens efficietur. Si
uolueris, album cum gorma poteris miscere, et erit faluus color.
Brunum sicut uermiculum moles. In eo potes miscere album et iterum
nigrum de carbone potes in eo miscere. Item ad azorium et erit faluus color.
Gipsum moles sicut ocrum sed nil e eo facies nisi cum uolueris aurum in
libris ponere. Tunc uero suppones aurum sicut de ocro diximus.
Pannum folii scindes et scissuras in coquilla pones. Hoc expleto, super-
fundes glaream oui et sines maturescere, fietque purpureus color. Si uis
miscere cum brasillo, et iterum si uis cum albo, potes.
Pone brasilli fragmen bene minutum in glarea forti et, post duos uel tres
dies, pone alumen moderate sicut superius diximus, et dimitte per duos uel
tres dies uel quattuor donec maturum sit. Pastellum potes distemperare
bis uel ter, sed caue ne totum siccatum sit.
Azorium distempera cum oui albugine fricando in uasculo digito donec
satis sit, et postea lauabis illud pro uouo inueterato et nigrefacto, et post 2
uel 3 dies iterum lauabis illud pro uouo inueterato et nigrefacto. Et dimitte
donec siccatum sit propter humorem aque, et iterum sic illuminare poteris.
Habeto in alio uase de eodem colore ita distemperatum, uel aliter; pone
gummam que decurrit de pruno! uel de cino in aquam mundam et facies
bullire donec mensurate spissata uel tenax fuerit; uide ne bulliendo exeat
de uasculo, sed custodi eam et inde distempera azorium. Quociens uideris
nigrum, pone nimis parum de lacte.
Uiride nunquam cum acceto distempera. Uinum optimum pone in uase
eneo uel cuprino et bulies. Quo cocto et mundato de spuma, custodi illud
et inde distempera uiridem colorem et pone ad tepidum uel lentum solem
donec spissus sit mensurate.? Et posito in eo de croco et de puluere ossis
combusti, alterum ei conthrait uirorem et meliorem; uel si miscueris nouum
cum ueteri, alteram uiriditatem habebit. Si totum siccatum fuerit uel
minus ® crassum, pone parum de aqua.
Pone uiride in uino et frica satis digito; quosedato, accipe quod liquidum
est et pone ad lentum solem uel in loco ubi spissari posscit. Quando aptum
erit ad scribendum, pone in uase uitreo uel de cera et poteris diu bonum con-
seruare. Si nigrior fuerit, pone parum de saffran(o) et de puluere ossis com-
busti. 5i cicius uis illuminare, accipe de uitello oui et misce cum eo uiride
uinum, et cum hoc liquore mole super petram uiride, etinde distempera;
et sic bonum erit. |
Sinople rade et pone puluerem in nouo uase de cemento secundum illam
quantitatem quam posueris aluminis in brasillo...
Auripigmentum tere, prius inuolutum in corio siue in percameno, uel in
molendino ubi piper teritur donec sit quasi puluis, et postea mole diutius
1 prino, cod. 2 mensinate, cod. 3 Lege nimis?
Liber de Coloribus 287
You grind sinoper! in the same way as vermilion. A little white may be
mixed with it, and it will become rose-color; or if you mix a little sinoper
with white, it will be carmine. And if you mix orpiment with sinoper, with
the orpiment in excess, it will be an orange tint.
When you wish to temper gorma,? take strong quicklime and put it in
a little jar. And when you have done that, take wine and water and white
of egg in equal quantities, and wet the lime with them. Then take the
gorma and grind it on the marble slab with this composition. And when
you have done so, you may work with the gorma, using that composition as a
medium. And you should know that when the gorma is old, you may take
water and put it in the gorma and leave it for a day; but take care not to
have too great an excess of water, but add only enough water for the gorma
to be affected by the moisture. And it will become as it were fresh. If you
wish, you may mix white with the gorma, and the color will be tawny.
You grind brown like vermilion. You may mix white with it, or you
may mix charcoal-black with it. And if you add azure to it, it will be a
tawny color.
Gypsum 1s ground like ochre, but you will not have any use for it except
when you wish to lay gold in books. And then you put on the gold as we
have described in speaking of ochre.
Cut up cloth dyed with foltum, and put the cuttings in a dish. After
doing this, pour white of egg on them, let it steep, and it will take on a
purple color. If you wish to mix it with brazil or, if you wish, with white,
you may do so.
Put a very small scrap of Brazil-wood in strong white of egg, and after
two or three days add a moderate dose of alum, as we have described above,
and leave it for two, or three, or four days, until the color has developed.
You may temper pastel * two or three times, but take care not to let it
evaporate entirely.
Temper azure with the white of an egg by rubbing it in a little dish
until it is saturated. And tlien wash it free of the old, darkened egg, and
after two or three days wash it again, on account of the egg which has grown
old and dark. And set it aside until the moisture of the water has evapo-
rated, and you will be able to illuminate with it again. Take some of the
same color, tempered in this way, or otherwise, in another dish. Put some
of the gum which oozes out of the plum or cinus tree into clean water, and
boil it until it becomes quite thick and sticky; and take care not to let it
boil over, but keep it and temper the azure with it. Whenever it seems dark
to you, add a little milk.
1 Sinople? See NED. s. ».
2 Gorma, to be identified with garance or madder?
3 See NED. s. 9. 1.
288 Liber de Coloribus
cum aqua. Quando siccata, accipe de uitello oui crudi et de puluere ossis
combusti et hoc mole similiter, et postea misce cum auripigmento moluto,
secundum quod tibi uidetur bene temperatum; et distempera cum oui albu-
gine secundum quod tibi uidetur. Accipe duas partes auripigmenti et unam
de uitello oui et ossis combusti et misce simul, et tunc bonum erit.
Colores in percameno clari et spissi: hii sunt azorium, uermiculum,
auripigmentum, uiride Grecum, uiride terrestre, sanguis draconis, grauetum,!
indicum, carominium, crocus, folium, brunum, minium album et rubeum;
nigrum optimum ex carbonibus uitis. Nigrum istum distempera cum glarea
oul sicut uermiculum.
LIT]
De natura colorum et commixtione.
Si uis scire naturas colorum et commixtiones, diligenter attende. Azo-
rium incides in nigro, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Item misce cum albo
plumbo. Incide de azorio, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
Uermiculum incides de bruno, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Item misce
1 Grauetus or granetus; probably to be identified (as by E. Berger, Beitrage zur Entwick-
lungsgeschichte der Maltechnik, III, 28) with the granetus of Le Begue’s Tabula de uocabulis
sinonimts et equiuocis colorum, etc. Merrifield, op. cit. supra, p. 28 8. 9.
Liber de Coloribus | 289
Never temper green with vinegar. Put the best wine in a dish of bronze
or copper, and boil it. When it has been boiled and skimmed, keep it and
temper the green with it, and put it in warm or moderate sunlight until it
becomes quite thick. And if you put saffron and the powder of calcined
bones in it, it acquires a different, handsomer green color; or if you mix it
with some of an old mixture some that has been freshly prepared, it will be
a still different shade of green. If it all dries up or becomes too thick, add
a little water.
Put some green in wine, and rub it well with your finger; when it has
settled, take the liquid part and put it in moderate sunlight, or elsewhere,
to thicken. When it is fit for writing, put it in a vessel made of glass or wax,
and you will be able to keep it in good condition for a long time. If it is
too dark, add a little saffron and the powder of calcined bones. If you wish
to illuminate more easily, take some yolk of egg, and mix the green wine
with it, and grind the green pigment with this mixture upon the stone, and
temper it with the same; and thus it will be good.
Scrape sinoper, and put the powder in a new stone vessel, according to
the amount of alum which you put in the brazil...
Break up orpiment, at first either wrapped up in leather or parchment,
or in a little mill for grinding pepper until it is reduced practically to dust,
and then grind it for a long time with water. When the water has dried up,
take some of the yolk of a raw egg, and some powder of calcined bones, and
grind them in the same way, and then mix them with the ground orpiment
until it seems to you well tempered; and temper it with white of egg, as
you think best. If you take two parts of orpiment, and one of egg-yolk
and calcined bones, and mix them together, it will be good.
The following are the colors, transparent and opaque, for parchment:
azure, vermilion, orpiment, verdigris, terre-verte, dragonsblood, grauetus,
indigo, carmine, saffron, folium, brown, white lead, and minium, and the
finest black made from vine-charcoal. You temper that black with white
of egg, Just as you do vermilion.
(11)
On the nature and mixture of colors.
If you wish to know the natures and mixtures of colors, give close atten-
tion. You shade azure with black, and model it with white lead. Likewise
mix with white lead. Shade with azure and Jighten with white lead.
Shade vermilion with brown, and lighten with white lead. Mix vermilion
with white lead, and it makes the color which is called rose; you shade it
with vermilion and lighten it with white lead.
You may shade orpiment with vermilion, but there is no lightening it,
290 Liber de Coloribus
uermiculum cum albo plumbo et facit colorem qui uocatur rosa. Incides de
uermiculo, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
Auripigmentum incide uermiculo, et illi maptizatura non est, quia de-
turpat omnes colores. Tamen, si uis facere gladium uiride, auripigmentum
misce cum indico. Incides de nigro, maptizabis de auripigmento.
Sanguis draconis incides de nigro, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Item
miscebis sanguinem draconis cum auripigmento; incides de sanguine dra-
conis, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
Uiride incides de nigro, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Item misce uiride
cum albo plumbo. Incides de uiridi, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
Grauetum incides de uiride, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Incides de
graueto, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
Indicum incides de azorio, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Item misce
indicum cum albo plumbo; incides de indico, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
Folium incides de nigro, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Item misce folium
cum albo plumbo; incides de folio, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Si uis facere
simile uiridi Gallico, misce azorium cum albo plumbo, incides de azorio,
maptizabis de albo plumbo, et quando fuerit siccum operi de claro croco.
Auripigmentum cum uiridi non concorda.
[TIT]
Item de naturis et commixtionibus colorum.
Colores in percameno spissi et clari: hii sunt azorium et ceteri ut supra.
Hii omnes colores distemperantur cum glarea preter uiride Grecum.
Quod si uolueris scire naturas et commixtiones colorum et que sibi sunt
contraria, diligenter actende.
Azorium misce cum albo plumbo. Incide de indico, maptiza de albo
plumbo. Purum azorium incides de nigro, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
Uermiculum purum incides de bruno aud de sanguine draconis, mapti-
zabis de auripigmento. Uermiculum miscecum albo plumbo, et facit colorem
qui uocatur rosa. Incides de uermiculo, maptizabis de albo pumbo. Item
facies rosam de sanguine draconis et de albo plumbo; incides de sanguine
draconis, maptizabis de albo plumbo. Item facies colorem de sanguine
draconis et de auripigmento. Incide de bruno, maptiza de auripigmento.
Carominium incides de bruno, maptizabis de rubro minio. Item facies
rosam de carominio et de albo plumbo. Incides de carominio, maptizabis
de albo plumbo.
Folium incides de bruno, maptizabis!dealbo plumbo. Item misces foltum
cum albo plumbo; incides de folio, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
1 paptizabis, cod.
Liber de Coloribus 291
because it fouls all colors. Still, if you wish to make a ‘corn-flag’ (gladium)
green, mix orpiment with indigo, put in the shadows with black, and hatch
the lights with orpiment.
You may darken dragonsblood with black, and model on it with white.
Or mix dragonsblood with orpiment, shade with dragonsblood, and put on
the lights with white lead.
Neutralize green with black, and model the lights with white lead. Or
mix green with white lead. Make the shadows with pure green and the
lights with white.
You may shade grauetus with green, and hatch the lights with white
lead; shade the green with grauetus and put on the lights with white lead.
Use azure for the shadows in a field of indigo, and white lead for the
lights. Or mix indigo with white lead, and model it with indigo and white
lead.
Shade folium with black and model it with white lead. Likewise mix
folium with white lead; shade the folium, and lighten it with white Jead.
If you wish to make a color like French green, mix azure with white lead,
shade it with azure, put on the lights with white lead, and when it is dry,
cover it with transparent saffron.
Do not blend orpiment with green.
(HT)
More about the natures and combinations of colors.
These are the colors, transparent and opaque, for parchment: azure,
and the rest, as above. All these colors are tempered with white of egg
except verdigris.
But if you care to understand the characters and compositions of pig-
ment-mixtures and to know those which are incompatible, give me your
close attention.
Mix azure with white lead, shade it with indigo, and for the lights use
white lead. If you use the azure pure, put in the shadows with black, and
the lights with white lead.
Shade pure vermilion with brown or dragonsblood, and lighten it with
orpiment. Mix vermilion with white lead, and it makes the color which 1s
called rose. Shade it with vermilion, and put on the high-lights with white.
In the same way you may make a rose-color with dragonsblood and white
lead, modelling it with dragonsblood for the shadows and white lead for
the lights.1. Or make a color with dragonsblood and orpiment; shade it
with brown, and touch it up with orpiment.
Darken carmine with brown, and put minium in the high-lights. Or
1 This mode was much in favor among the French illuminators of the fourteenth century.
292 Liber de Coloribus
Auripigmentum incides de uermiculo et ipsi maptizatura non est, quia
stercorat omnes alios colores. Tamen si uis facere gladium uiridum, misce
auripigmentu(m) cum nigro, incides cum nigro, maptiza cum auripigmento.
Si uis facere simile uiridi Gallico, misce azorium cum albo plumbo. In-
cides de azorio, maptizabis de albo plumbo; et cum siccum fuerit, cooperi!
de claro croco.
Uiride Grecum distemperabis cum aceto, incides de nigro, maptizabis
de albo quod fit de cornu cerui. Item viride miscebis cum albo plumbo.
Incides de uiridi, maptizabis de albo plumbo.
LIV]
Qualiter debeant fieri colores; primo de azorio.
Si uis facere azorium optimum, accipe ollam nouam que numquam in
opus fuerit, et mitte in eam laminas purissimi argenti quantas uis; et sic
cooperi illam et sigilla et mitte ipsam ollam in uindemia que proiecta est de
torculari, et illic bene cooperi de ipsa uindemia, et serua bene usque ad 15
dies; et sic aperies illam ollam, et illum colorem qui est in circuitu laminarum
argentearum excucies in mundissimo uase. Quod si amplius uis, repone ipsas
laminas quociens uolueris.
Si uis aliter facere azorium, accipe ampullam nouam uel ollam, et mitte
in eam laminas purissimi argenti ut dixi, et prius lini easdem de optimo
aceto. Et sic cooperi, et sigilla, et serua usque ad 6tam ebdomadam. Uel si
uis, acetum in ollam infunde, et ita dimitte et serua ut dixi. Oportet, autem,
ut olla uel ampulla plena sit ne aer uel uentus intrare possit. Postea dis-
cooperies et colliges ipsum florem in uasculo argenti, et ad solem exsicca.
Si uis facere aliud azorium, accipe ampullam de purissimo cupro et
ipsam ampullam imple usque ad medium de noua calce, et post imple omnino
de fortissimo acceto, et sic cooperi ampullam et sigilla, et pone tenacem
terram uel pastam circa os ampulle ne aliquid humoris possit exire, et
mitte in aliquo calido loco, aut in terram aut in fimum proiectum de stabulo,
et sic spacio unius mensis dimitte, et sic aperi ipsam ampullam, et quod
in ea inueneris, mitte ad solem siccare. Istud azorium non est tam bonum
sicut aliud, tamen ualet ad lignum et ad maceriam.
Item aliud azorium. Accipe flores blauos, et tere et exprime in uas mun-
1 cooperie, cod.
Liber de Coloribus 293
make a rose-color out of carmine and white Jead. Shade with carmine and
put in the lights with white lead.
Make the shadows in a field of foltum with brown, and the lights with
white lead. Or mix the folium with white lead and model it with folium in
the darks and white lead in the high-lights.
You may make the shadows upon orpiment with vermilion, but it has
no modelling in the lights, because it makesall other colors go foul. Though,
if you wish to make ‘corn-flag’ green, you may mix orpiment with black,
shade with black, and bring it up to orpiment in the lights.
If you wish to make a color like French green, mix azure with white
lead. Shade it with azure, lighten it with white lead; and when it is dry,
glaze it with transparent yellow.
Temper verdigris with vinegar; shade with black, and lay the lights with
the white which is made from stag’s-horn. Or you may mix green with
white lead, shade it with green, and lighten it with white lead.
LIV]
How colors are to be prepared: beginning with azure.
- If you wish to make the finest azure, take a new pot — one that has never
been in use — and put in it as many leaves of very pure silver as you wish;
and put the pot into the marc, which has been thrown out of the wine-press,
and cover it up well with the marc and keep it carefully for fifteen days.
Then open the pot, and scrape out into a very clean dish the color which
surrounds the leaves of silver. And if you want more of it, replace the
leaves as often as you like.
If you wish to make azure in another way, take a jar or a pot, and
put into it, as I have said, some leaves of very pure silver, but smear them
first with the strongest vinegar. So cover the receptacle, and seal it, and
keep it until the sixth week. Or, if you wish, pour vinegar into the pot, and
put it away so, and keep it as I have said. It is desirable, moreover, that
the pot or jar be full, in order that no air or draught may penetrate. Later
on you may uncover it, and gather up the crust of color in a silver vessel,
and dry it in the sun.
If you wish to make a different azure, take a jar made of the purest
copper, and fill the pot half full of quicklime, and then fill it up to the top
with strong vinegar. And so cover it and seal it, and put some sticky clay
or paste around the mouth of the jar, so that no moisture can escape, and
put it in a warm place, either underground or in the manure which is thrown
out of the stable, and leave it there for the period of one month. Then
open the pot, and put what you find in it in the sun to dry. This azure is
not so good as the other; nevertheless it will do for woodwork and walls.
294 Liber de Colonbus
dum, et fac prius campum in ligno et in percameno de albo plumbo et mitte
desuper, quando fuerit siccum, ipsum colorem, et tantum fac ita usque quo
uideas ipsum colorem esse simile azorio.
Azorium mole super petram, postea cole per pannum delicatum ut
mundior sit. Quo apurato et siccato, pone glaream nouam et fortem. Postea
accipe de uitello oui crudi et misce cum aqua uel cum uino aliquantum, et
nimis parum pone in colore et faciet melius de penna exire. Id ipsum
propter hoc ipsum ad omnes colores utile est. Quod si nigrior fuerit, bis uel
ter uel quociens expedit lauabis aqua, et sic meliorabitur.
[V]
De uermiculo faciendo. Si uis facere uermiculum optimum, accipe am-
pullam uitream et lini eam deforis de argilla optima tribus uicibus, et sic
accipe unum pondus uiui argenti et duo pondera albi sulphuris aut crocei
coloris, ita ut due partes sint de sulphure, tercia de argento uiuo, et intus pone
supradictas partes ita ut pars sulphuris subtus sit bene diminuta, et pars
argenti uiui desuper sit ut ueniat usque ad collum ampulle, et mitte ipsam
ampullam super quattuor petras; tunc appone ignem de carbonibus in cir-
cuitu ampulle, tamen lentissimum, et sic cooperi os ampulle de parua
tegula uel petra, et quando uideris fumum blauium aut crocei coloris exire,
cooperi et, quando uideris fumum rubeum quasi uermiculum, tolle ab igne,
et habebis uermiculum optimum in ampulla.
[VI]
De uiridi Greco faciendo. Si uis facere uiride Grecum, accipe ollam nouam
aut aliut uas concauum, et mitte in uase accetum fortissimum et laminas
cupri mundissimi super acetum pones, ita ut non tanga(n)t acetum, et ita
cooperi et sigilla, et sic pone illut in calido loco aut in terra, et ita dimitte
per 6 menses et tunc aperies illud uas et quod in eo inueneris excute in uase
mundissimo et mitte ad solem siccare.
Item si uis facere uiride Rotomagense, accipe laminas purissimi cupri et
lini eas de optimo sauone in circuitu et mitte illas laminas in uase mundo
ad hoc facto, et imple illud puro aceto et superpone laminas ne tangant
acetum, et, cooptum uas, sigilla bis, et post 1 mensem aperies, et quod
inueneris in laminis excucies in uase et sicabis.
Item de uiridi. Colorem uiridem qui uult ad usum facere scribendi, in
uase cupreo mel cum aceto ualde mixtum equo pondere infundat, ac inde
Liber de Coloribus 295
Still another sort of azure. Take blue flowers and grind and press them
out in a clean vessel; and first of all, make a ground upon wocd and upon
parchment with white lead, and when it is dry, lay the color upon it. And
continue to do so until you see that the color is like azure.
Grind azure on the stone, and then strain it through a fine cloth, sO
that it may be cleaner. When it is clean and dry, add to it some fresh,
strong white of egg. Then take some of the yolk of a raw egg, and mix it with
water, or with a little wine, and put a very small amount of this into the
color, and it will make it flow better from the pen. That same device is
useful for all colors, for the same reason. And if it is too dark, you may wash
it two or three times, or as often as you like, briskly, with water, and it
will be improved.
[V]
On making vermilion. If you wish to make the finest vermilion, take
a glass jar and lute it outside with the finest clay, three times; and then
take one weight of quicksilver and two weights of white or yellow sulphur,
so that there will be two parts of sulphur and a third of quicksilver. And
put in the above-mentioned ingredients in such a way that part of the
sulphur, finely divided, may be on the bottom, and part of the quicksilver
above, so that it may reach right up to the neck of the jar. Put the jar
upon four stones, and then build up a charcoal fire around the jar, but let it
be a very moderate one. And so cover the mouth of the jar with a little tile
or piece of stone. And when you see that the smoke is blue or yellow-
colored, as it comes off, put on the cover; and when you see that the smoke
is almost as red as vermilion, take it from the fire, and you will have in the
jar the finest vermilion.
[VI]
On making verdigris. If you wish to make verdigris, take a new pot,
or any other hollow vessel, and put into the vessel some very strong vinegar,
and arrange sheets of the purest copper over the vinegar, in such a way
that they may not come into contact with the vinegar. And so cover it up,
and seal it, and put it in a warm place, or underground, and set it aside for
six months. And tben you must open the vessel, and scrape off into a very
clean dish the material which you find in it, and set it in the sun to dry.
Furthermore, if you wish to make a green of Rouen, take some sheets
of very pure copper, and smear them all over with the best soap, and put
these sheets into a clean vessel, made for the purpose, and fill it with pure
vinegar. But arrange the sheets above it, in such a way that they may not
come into contact with the vinegar. And when you have covered the vase,
seal it doubly; and at the end of one month open it, and scrape what you
find on the copper sheets into a dish, and dry it.
296 4 Liber de Coloribus
in sterquilinio equorum, ubi plus ualet,' illud abscondat, et bis senis diebus
transactis illud recipiat.
Item imple peluim de aceto albi uini et inmitte laminas cupri, et quicquid
poteris habere cupri intus prohice, et sic spacio unius mensis uel duorum uel
trium stare sine, et optimum erit.
(VIT]
De minio albo et rubeo faciendo. Si autem uis facere rubeum minium
uel album, accipe laminas plumbeas et mitte in ollam nouam, et sic imple
illam ollam fortissimo acceto et cooperi et sigillabis et mitte in aliquo loco
calido, et sic 1 mense dimitte, et tunc aperies olam et quod inueneris in
circuitu laminarum plumbearum mitte in aliam ollam et pone super ignem
et semper mouebis ipsum colorem donec efficiatur albus sicut nix, et tunc
tolles ab igne, et sumes de ipso colore sicut uis; et iste color uocatur cerusa.
Reliquam partem pone super ignem et semper mouebis donec eflficiatur
rubeum minium. Propterea moneo ut semper moueas, quia si semper non
moues, iterum uertitur in plumbum;; et sic tolle ab igne et dimitte illam
refrigerari.
Azorium bonum est quod Saraceni faciunt. Item azorium Romanum est
aliud quod indicum uocatur.
Uiride bonum est quod de Grecia uenit. Item aliud uiride est quod ter-
restre dicitur eo quod terra sit, et de Monte Gelboe affertur.
Uermiculum bonum est quod de Yspania uenit. Item vermiculum
grossum est quod minium uocatur. ©
Album bonum est quod de Apuleya uenit. Item aliud album est quod
de ossibus fit; item aliud album quod de plumbo extrahitur.
Auripigmentum croceus color est et de Monte Gelboe affertur. Hic enim
mons ex una parte croceus est et ex altera parte uiridis, et sic in eo uiride et
croceum reperitur. Item alius alius croceus color quem ocrum dicunt et
in multis locis reperitur, sed illud quod a Turonensi urbe affertur preciosius
est ceteris. Ite(m) alius croceus color est qui saffrannum dicitur, et de Ys-
pania affertur. F
Brasillum quedam arbor est et est optimus color. Medulla huius arboris
non est bona pictoribus seu illuminatoribus, sed tinctoribus pannorum.
Sinoplum quidam color est rubicundus.
Gorma quedam herba est que trahit in purpuram et affertur de quedam
regione et hec rosa dicitur.
Brunum quidam color est mortuus, nec niger nec rubeus.
Liber de Coloribus 297
More about green. If anyone wishes to make a green color for the pur-
pose of writing, he should put some honey, mixed up thoroughly with an
equal weight of vinegar, into a copper vessel, and then bury it in horse-dung,
where it will better keep its strength.! And at the end of twelve days it may
be removed.
Or again, fill a basin with white-wine vinegar, and put into it sheets of
copper, and any bits of copper that you can lay your hands on. And leave
it so for the period of one month, or two, or three, and it will be excellent.
(VIT]
On making white lead and minium. Now if you wish to make either
minium or white lead, take sheets of lead and put them into a new pot, and
then fill that pot with very strong vinegar, and cover it, and seal it, and put it
in a warm place, and leave it for a month. Then open the pot, and put the
material which you find on the sheets of lead into another pot, and set it on
the fire. Then stir that color constantly until it becomes as white as snow;
and then take it from the fire, and remove as much of that color as you wish.
That color is known as ceruse. Put the remainder back upon the fire, and
stir this constantly until it turns into minium. And this is why I urge you
to stir it constantly; because, if you do not stir it constantly, it will go
back into metallic lead. Finally, take it from the fire, and set it aside to
cool.
The azure which the Saracens make is good. And Roman azure is
another, called indigo.
The green which comes from Greece is good. And there is another green,
called terre-verte, because it is an earth, and that is brought from Mount
Gilboa.?
The vermilion which comes from Spain is good. And there is a coarse
vermilion color which is called minium.
The white which comes from Apulia is good. And there is a white
which is made from bones; also another white which is prepared from lead.
Orpiment is a yellow color and is brought from Mount Gilboa; for this
mountain is yellow on one side and green on the other, and so both green
and yellow colors are found in it. There is also another yellow of a different
shade, called ochre, and it is found in many places; but that which is
brought from the city of Tours is more desirable than the others. Also
1 For ualet, the Inber Magistri Petri de Sancto Audemaro de Coloribus Faciendis, § 157, ed.
Mrs Merrifield, op. cit. I, 126, 127, has calet. Mrs Merrifield translates: “. . . bury the vessel
in horae-dung, in the hottest part of the heap.” This use of the heat, generated by fermenting
dung for maintaining a steady moderate temperature, was a common resource of the mediaeval
craftsman. 2 In Syria; see Hendrie, op, cit., pp. 101, 102.
298 Liber de Coloribus
Gipsum quidam color est qui a Parisiacensi affertur urbe. Iste color non
ualet, nisi ad aurum in percameno ponendum.
Morella quedam herba est in terra Sancti Egidii. Ex hac herba tria
genera ! in semine exeunt, et ex hiis granis tele tinguntur, sicque mirum
colorem reddunt, qui color folium dicitur.
CVIIT]
De cemento faciendo. Cementum quod semel siccatum nullis umquam
rumpitur aquis. Accipe calcem uiuam, puluerem tegule, paleam ferri,
sabulum, oleum, aquam, et fac cementum. Item cementum ad solidand(um)
marmora et alios lapides. Pone 8 partes pulueris tegule, et 4 partes
palee ferri et 2 partes picis et 1 cere, et puluerem ipsius lapidis, et fac
cementum, et solida, et uide ut calidus sit lapis et calidum cementum.
[TX]
Ad faciendum uitrum molle. Sanguis hirci et anceris cum amarica et
aceto in uase eneo equaliter lento igne commixta uitrum et gemmas molli-
ficat impositum, ita ut ferro scindi possit.
Item uitella oui faba fresa calce mixta, uitrum solidant.
[X]
De lacte facienda. Mense Martio cum herbe ac arbores succum a Matre
Terra traxerint et iterum crescendo uirtutem ceperint, subulam accipe et
ramos edere locatim perfora, et egredietur gummi liquor ex eis, de quo
sanguineus color coquendo efficitur qui lacta uocatur. Dequoque igitur
colorem illum cum urina et h(ab)ebis colorem sanguineum qui est utilis
scriptoris atque pictoris.
[xT]
De bresillo faciendo ad conseruandum. Accipe bresilis limaturam et in
uno uase cum uino rubeo permitte ad ignem bullire; deinde lactam cum
urina distempera et cum eo pone ut simul bulliant. Postea alumen accipe
1 Lege grana?
Liber de Coloribus 299
there is another yellow color, called saffron, and it is brought from Spain.
Brazil is a kind of tree, and it is a splendid color. The pith of this tree
is not useful for painters or illuminators, but for dyers of cloth.
Sinoper is a reddish color. |
Gorma is a sort of plant, with a purple cast, and it is brought from a
certain locality, and known as the rosy-plant.
Brown is a certain lifeless color, neither black nor red.
Gypsum is a kind of pigment which is brought from Paris. It is of no
use as a color, except for laying gold on parchment.
The morel is a kind of plant which grows in the land of St Giles. And
from this plant three grains go out in the seed, and with these three grains
cloths are dyed, and so yield up a splendid color, called folium.
(VOT)
On making cement. A cement which, once dry, is not affected by any
liquid. Take quicklime, powdered tile, iron rust, sand, oil, and water,
and make a cement. Or again, for a cement for mending marble and other
stones: take three parts of powdered tile and four parts of iron rust, and
two parts of pitch, and one of wax, and some of the powder of the stone in
question, and make a cement, and do the mending. And see to it that both
the stone and the cement are warm.
[TX]
To soften glass. The blood of a he-goat and a goose, evenly mixed with
the lees of oil and vinegar in a brazen vessel over a slow fire, softens any
glass or gems which you put into it, so that they can be carved with a knife.
Likewise, yolks of eggs mixed with so much as a bean of quicklime have
the power of mending glass.
[X]
On making lake. In the month of March, when plants and trees are
drawing up sap from Mother Earth and gathering strength once more in
growth, procure an augur, and pierce the branches of the ivy-plant here
there. And a liquid gum will flow out of them, and from this you can pre-
pare a blood-red color by cooking it. And this is called lake. So boil that
color with urine, and you will obtain a color like blood, which is useful
to scribes and to painters.
[XT]
How to make brazil so that it may be kept on hand. Take the scrapings
of Brazil-wood, and let them boil with red wine in a vessel on the fire. Then
temper some lake with urine, and put it with the other, so that they may
1 More likely Provence than as Hendrie suggests, op. cit. supra, p. 59, Athens.
300 Liber de Coloribus
et cum eis in uase misce. Parumper moue, tunc ab igne repone, et in scutella
mitte; deinde super lapidem fortiter tere, et collige, et ad solem siccare
permitte. Postea in forulo ad seruandum repone.
[XI]
De temperatura azorii. De azorio quid certius dicam non habeo, quia
alii cum lacte caprino, alii cum lacte mulieris, alii cum glarea oui molunt et
distemperant; et satis utrumque bonum est. Ego uero in primis si uidero
Opus esse in bacino eum simulque paululum aque mitto, et tam diu cum
digitofrico quousque totus madefactus sit; ac deinde aquaminfundo,et bene
mixta, postquam quieuerit eandem aquam sic turbatam ex immundicia in
alio uase recipio, reseruaturus colorem preciosum qui in fundo remanet
uasis. Nam h(u)ius nature est ut quanto puriorest cicius labatur ad fundum;
immundicia leuius natat. Quod si neccesse fuerit id ipsum sepius repeto,
aquam sepe infundendo et effundendo donec purgetur. Et iam bene purga-
tum et cum aqua tritum postquam in cornu reposuero, et eiecta aqua cum
aliquid inde facere uoluero, glaream oui multum claram immitto, eandem
post unius hore spacium eiecturus. Nam diucius si intus manserit corrum-
pet colorem, ei propriam speciem auferendo. Et postquam glaream egecero,
statim illud aqua frigida repleo, eandem postea reiecturus ratione preli-
bata; hu(n)c colorem in maceria cum aqua et cum uino pones, in ligno uero
cum oleo.
[XIT]
De folio. Folii tria sunt genera, unum purpureum, aliud rubeun, ter-
cium saphirinum, que sic temperabis. Tolle cineres et cribra eos per pan-
num, perfundensque eos aqua frigida, et fac inde tortulas ad similitudinem
panis, mittesque eas in igne donec omnino candescant. Postquam diutissime
canduerint et postea friguerint, mitte partem in uas fictile, perfunde urina,
moue ligno. Cumque resederint, lucide perfunde inde rubeum folium et
teres illud modice super lapidem, addens ei 4 partes uiue calcis, et cum
tritum fuerit ac sufficienter perfusum, cola per pannum, ac trahe cum
pincello. Et si placet in similitudinem pallii in pagina facere, purpureo
folio eodem temperamento sine uiua calce perfuso pi(n)ge penna.
lina s ._ . . ._ ._
Liber de Coloribus 301
boil together. Then take some alum, and mix it with them in the vessel.
Stir it a little, and take it from the fire, and put it into a saucepan. Then
grind it thoroughly on the stone, and gather it together, and let it dry in
the sun. Afterwards, put it away in a box for safekeeping.
[XI]
On tempering azure. I have nothing very definite to say about azure,
for some temper it with goat’s-milk, others with woman’s-milk, others with
white of egg; and any of these is good enough. Now as soon as I see that
it is necessary, I put the azure, and at the same time, a little water, into
a basin, and rub it with my finger until it is all moistened. Then I pour in
water, and when it has all been mixed up thoroughly, and the blue has
settled to the bottom, I pour off into another vessel the water thus soiled
by the impurity, keeping back the precious color, which remains in the bot-
tom of the vessel. For it is of such a nature that, the purer it is, the more
quickly it sinks to the bottom; the impunities, being lighter, rise to the top.
But if it seems to be necessary, I repeat the operation several times, pouring
water in and decanting it repeatedly, until the blue is purified. And when
it is well purified and ground with water, I place it in a receptacle. And
when the water has been removed, and I wish to do anything with the
color, I put some very clear white of egg into it, and this 1 remove again
at the end of one hour. For if it should stay in the mixture longer, it would
injure the color, taking away something of its natural brilliance. And after
I have removed the egg, I fill the vessel immediately with cold water, and
then decant that, in the way I have already described. You apply this
color with water and wine on a wall, but upon wood, with oil.
[XTIT]
On folium. There are three kinds of fol:wm: one purple, another red,
and a third sapphire. You temper them as follows: take ashes and sift them
through a cloth, pouring cold water over tbem, and tben make little cakes
out of them, like loaves of bread, and put them in a fire until they glow all
over. After they have glowed for some time with the heat and then cooled
off, put a portion of them into an earthen vase, drench them with urine,
and stir them with a stick. And when they have settled, moisten the red
folium lightly with them and grind it a little on the stone, adding to it
four parts of quicklime. And when it is ground, and strong enough in color,
strain it through a cloth, and lay it on with a brush. And if you wish to
represent a robe on the page of your book, design it with the quill, using
purple folium and the same medium, only without the quicklime.
302 Liber de Coloribus
[XIV]
Excetepciones (excerptiones ?) de coloribus distemperandis; de gummi
distemperando. Si uolueris opus tuum festinare, sume gummi quod exit de
arbore cino uel pruno,! et contunde[n]s illud minutissime, et pones in uas fic-
tile, et aquam habundanter infunde, et pone ad solem siue ad carbones in
yeme, donec gummi liquifiat et ligno rotundo diligenter commisce. Deinde
cola per pannum et inde tere colores. Omnes colores et mixture eorum
hoc gummi teri et poni possunt preter minimum et cerusam et carmyn,
qui claro oui terendi et ponendi sunt. Uiride Hyspanie non misceatur
succo sub glutine, sed per se cum gummi ponatur.
[XV]
Albus et uiridis color hoc modo fiat et distemperetur. In uase aceto
acerimo impleto desuper uirgulas, et sic tabulas plumbeas uel cupreas
pones. Deinde uas illud diligentissime claudes, illiniesque uel argillosa terra
uel de cemento uel cera ne aliquid spiraculum remaneat per quod fiat
exalacio. Post dies autem triginta uas aperietur, et ex fortitudine uini
uirideum plumbum, uero album inuenietur. Sumptum autem et arefactum,
teres album cum uino et pingetur in percamenis, cum oleo uero in lignis et
maceriis. Similiter uirideum cum oleo teres et distemperabis in lignis et
maceriis cum uino, uel si mauis,?cum oleo. Utrumque enim ualet. In libris
uero non teres, sed in uino bono? albo et clarissimo siue aceto temperare
permittes, et sic digito tantum fricabis, et statim totum uium uirideum
erit. Quod si ualde uirideum fuerit uinum illud cum necdum a fece sua sit
purgatum, scias quia sufficienter habet puluerem. Si uero turpem colorem
et quasi crocei commixtione corruptum, noueris quia parum habet pulueris
et aliquantulum adde, quem ‘ quiescere paululum sines et iterum digito
fricabis, similiter et tertio. Deinde feces prohicies. Clarissimum uero uri-
deum in uasculo cupreo pones, ex quo si statim scribere uolueris, non poteris
nisi ad ignem feruere permisceris, ut spissior fiat. Hac etiam tantum uideli-
cet ut spiscetur, uel in umbra solis, uel mane et uespere ad auram dulcem,
quando scilicet uentus suauiter flat; ponendus est non autem in sole.
1 prino, cod. | 2 maius, cod.
® bone, cod. * cod. quod?
Liber de Coloribus 303
[XIV]
Selected passages about tbe tempering of colors; on tempering with
gum. If you wish to hasten your work, take the gum which flows from the
cinus or the plum tree, and break it into very fine pieces, and put it into an
earthen vessel, and pour a good deal of water upon it. Then put it in the
sunlight or, in winter, on hot coals, until the gum melts and stir it diligently
with a round stick of wood. Then strain it through a cloth and grind the
colors with it. All colors and all mixtures of colors may be ground and
applied with this gum, except minium and ceruse and carmine, which must
be ground and laid with white of egg. Spanish green is not to be mixed
with sap under varnish, but put on by itself with gum.
[XV]
White and green pigments are made and distempered as follows. Put
little rods across the top of a vessel filled with very strong vinegar, and lay
sheets of lead or copper on them. Then close the vessel up carefully, and
Iute it with clay or plaster or wax, so that no vent may remain through
which evaporation might take place. Then after thirty days the vessel is
opened, and the copper will be found all green, but [the lead], white, from
the acidity of the wine. When you have taken it up and dried it, grind the
white with wine, and paint with it upon parchment. But for woodwork and
walls it should be ground with oil. In the same way, grind and temper
the green with oil; for woodwork and walls with wine, or if you prefer, with
oil. For either is good. But for books you should not grind it, but let it
soak in good wine, white and very clear, or in vinegar; and then rub it a
little with your finger, and immediately all the wine will become green.
And if the wine is very green before all the dregs are dissolved, you will
know that there is enough of the powder in it. But if it has a poor color,
and looks as if it were contaminated with yellow, you will know that there
is not enough of the powder in it; so add a little more, and let it stand for
a while, and then rub it again with your finger. And repeat the operation
a third time. Then throw out the dregs, and put the very clear green into
a little copper vessel; and if you wanted to write with it at once, you could
not do so unless you let it simmer on the fire, to thicken it. And that is as
much as to say that it must be put to thicken, either shaded from the sun,
or in the gentle breeze of dawn or evening, but only when the wind is
blowing softly, and not in direct sunlight.
8304 Liber de Coloribus
[XVI]
De sinopide faciendo. Si uis facere optimum sinopidem, accipe lactam et
waranciam et coque in olla aliquantulum cum aqua. Postea extrahens ab olla
aliquantulum refrigerari permitte. Deinde in mortariolo fortiter tere et per
pannum extorquendo cola, et in bacinno uel in testa coque cum diligencia,
cauens ne bulliat sed tamen fremat, et eo dum coquitur, frequenter cum
festuca super unguem tuam pone donec spissum sit. Postea sine frigescere
et durescere donec inde possis pastillos facere et in forulo ponere.
[XVIT]
Quomodo ponitur aurum. Accipe gipsum et mole eum fortiter cum aqua.
Deinde accipe gluten tuum quod sit de taurina pinguedine et misce cum eo
pariter de glarea oui et distempera gipsum. Ubi uero aurum ponere uolueris,
ibi cum pincello de gipso trahes dimittesque siccare. Hec facies ter; postea
rades eum ut sit planum et burnies. Iterum de cola desuper pertrahes,
ilicoque aurum pones, et de cotho suauiter imprimes eum et ita dimitte
siccare. Si uero polire uis eum, de emathe uel dente canino polies eum.
[XVI]
Item de eodem. Accipe brasillum nouiter distemperatum cum glarea
oui optime facta. Pertrahe in percameno uitulino uel alio ubi aurum po-
siturum est, statim aurum desuper pone, et de cotho quasi non tangens
imprime, dimittesque per dimidium diem siccare. Postea accipe dentem
caninum, et burnire incipies, primum quidem suauiter ne totum dissipes.
Deinde tam fortiter ut frons tua sudore madescat.
Quando aurum in percameno arietino ponis, adde parum de gumma
cinea. Gumma uero aliter! Arabica mirabilis est ad operandum in utroque
percameno, Utrumque etenim! gummam sic distemperabis: accipe gum-
main et ligabis in pannum nitidissimum, ponesque in uase uitreo tota die et
nocte in! aqua’ iacere. Uel certe si festinare uis, digito tuo distempera eam
cum aqua. Sic in percamenum pertrahe penna quod uis, et ilico pone aurum
ut dictum est. Sed uide quia oportet te operari in humido loco propter
calidum tempus, quia sepe nocet ad burnienduin aurum et colores.
Colores tamen rigidum tempus et siccum expostulant.
1 Haec uerba quae in codice desunt ex libro Petri de Sancto Audemaro de Coloribus
Faciendis (ed. Merrifield, §§ 192-193, p. 155) hic suppleta sunt.
4
Fr >>
ee ll oe
Liber de Coloribus 305
[XVI]
On making sinoper. If you wish to make the best sinoper, take lake and
garance ' and boil them a little with water, ina pot. Then take it out of the
pot and let it cool a little. Then grind it thoroughly in a small mortar, and
strain it by wringing it through a cloth; then warm it in a basin or a pot,
cautiously, taking care not to let it boil, but only just simmer. And while
it is being warmed, try it from time to time with a twig, on your finger-nail,
until it thickens. Then let it cool and harden until you can make it into
cakes, and put them in a box. :
(XVIT]
How to lay gold.2 Take gypsum and grind it well with water. Then
take your glue, which should be made from the gelatinous parts of a bull,
and mix with it an equal quantity of white of egg, and temper the gypsum
with this mixture. And wherever you wish to lay the gold, spread some of
this gypsum with a brush and leave it to dry. Do this three times, and then
scrape it smooth, and burnish it. Then lay some of the glue upon it, and
on that lay the gold, pressing it down gently with a bit of cotton; and so
set it aside to dry. And if you wish to polish it, polish it with a bloodstone
or with a dog’s tooth.®
(XVII)
More on the same subject.‘ Take brazil, freshly tempered with very
carefully prepared white of egg. Lay it upon the parchment of calf or other
skin, wherever you wish to put the gold. Apply the gold at once, and
scarcely touching it, press it down with the cotton, and leave it for half a
day to dry. Then take a dog’s tooth, and begin to burnish, rather gently
at first, so as not to spoil it all; and then so strongly that your forehead
becomes moist with perspiration.
When you lay gold on parchment made of ram-skin, add a little of the
gum of the cinus tree. For that gum, otherwise gum arabic, is wonderful
for working upon any sort of parchment. And either kind of gum may be
prepared as follows: take the guin, and bind it up in a very clean cloth, and
put it in a glass vessel, under water, for a whole day and night. Or if you
wish to make haste, rub it up in water with your finger. So draw whatever
you wish with the quill upon the parchment, and lay the gold on it, as has
been described. But observe that you will do well to work in a damp place,
especially in warm weather, which often injures burnished gold and colors.
Nevertheless, colors call for harsh, dry weather.
1 Madder. 2 This is the method used for broad fields of burnished gold.
2 In French miniatures of this period, gold was often left unburnished, as a sort of
yellow color. 4 This method is suitable for smal], determinate gilded forms.
306 Liber de Coloribus
[XIX]
De temperamento auri. Accipe ocrum et distempera cum aqua sicque
dimittas siccare. Interim de percameno uitulino colam facies, postea gla-
ream de ouo facias, tunc colam et glaream insimul misces, et ocrum iam
bene siccatum, super marmorem fortiter teres, et ubi uolueris ponere aurum
in percameno statim ut molitum fuerit ocrum, super percamenum cum
pincello trahes; sicque aurum desuper ilico pones, dimittesque siccare ita
sine impressione coti; et postea cum dente fortiter burnies.
Item de distemperatura auri. Accipe gipsum et album de Apuleya et
carominium, id est sinobrium, tertiam partem de gipso, et de albo et de
carominio duas partes equales, et misce simul, et tere super marmorem,
adiungesque cum eis modicum cole, tenue tamen, et de hac distemperatura
poteris aurum ubicumque uolueris ponere et diu seruare.
[XX]
Quomodo scribitur auro. Sume tibi uas uitreum et urina tua illud imple,
sicque donec appareat clara requiescat; postea accipe glaream oui optime
' factam, et fac duas partes miscesque cum urina et mouebis insimul et pone
in cornu cum auro soluto, et poteris de auro scribere sicut de alio colore.
Ne,
Liber de Coloribus 307
[XIX]
On tempering gold. Take ochre, and temper it with water, and so set
it aside to dry. Meanwhile, make a glue from calf-skin parchment; then
prepare the white of an egg, and mix the glue and the white of egg together,
and when the ochre is thoroughly dry, grind it well on the marble. And
wherever you wish to lay gold on the parchment, spread the ochre on the
parchment with a brush as soon as it is ground. And then you may lay the
gold upon it, and put it aside to dry, without pressing it with the cotton.
And then burnish it well with a tooth.
More about the tempera for gold. Take gypsum and Apulian white and
carmine, that is sinobrium, a third part of gypsum and two equal parts of
white and carmine, and mix them together, and grind them on the marble;
and mix with them a little glue, but not too heavy. And with this tempera
you may lay gold wherever you please, and you may keep it for a long time.
[XX]
How to write with gold. Take a glass vessel and fill it with your urine,
and let it stand until it has cleared. Then take the very well-beaten white
of an egg, and make two portions, and mix it with the urine and stir them
together, and pour them into the vessel with the powdered gold, and you
will be able to write with gold just as with any other color.
Yale University.
THE MEDIAEVAL CONCEPTION OF KINGSHIP AND
SOME OF ITS LIMITATIONS, AS DEVELOPED IN
THE POLICRATICUS OF JOHN OF SALISBURY!
Br JOHN DICKINSON
HE Policraticus of John of Salisbury is the earliest elaborate
mediaeval treatise on politics.2, Completed in 1159, the date
of its composition makes it a landmark in the history of political
speculation for two reasons. It is the only important political treatise
written before western thought had once more become familiar with
the Politics of Aristotle. It thus represents the purely mediaeval tra-
dition unaffected by ideas newly borrowed from classical antiquity.
It is the culmination, in their maturest form, of a body of doctrines
which had developed in unbroken sequence from patristic literature
in contact with the institutions of the earlier Middle Ages. In the
second place it comes just before the important turning-point in
institutional development at the end of the twelfth and at the be-
ginning of the thirteenth century, when legal precision began to be
stamped on a great number of previously indefinite relationships,
and when feudal independence tended to become consolidated into
definite organs of political control. It therefore speaks from a point
of view which was about to disappear, but which it is all the more
important to understand because it contributed a heritage of ideas
whose momentum made them, in spite of the newer influences, the
dominant force in political thought down to at least the middle of
the sixteenth century.
1 This article will form a portion of the introduction to a translation of the fourth, fifth,
and sixth books, and of certain chapters of the seventh and eighth books, of the Poltcraticus,
to appear later under the title of The Statesman’s Book of John of Salisbury, as one of the
volumes of *‘ Political Science Classics,’’ edited by Professor Lindsay Rogers and published by
Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
3 “The first attempt to produce a coherent system which should aspire to the character
of a philosophy of politics.” R. Lane Poole, IWustrations of Mediaeval Thought (2d ed., London:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920), p. 204. ‘‘Das Verdienst gebiihrt ihm als
der erste .. . im Mittelalter den Versuch gemacht zu haben tiber das Wesen des Staates nach-
zudenken, sich dasselbe theoretisch zurecht zu legen.”’ E. Schuster, Die Staatslehre Johanns
von Salisbury (Erlangen diss., Berlin 1897), p. 30.
308
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 309
The first half of the twelfth century was in some respects the
great age of conscious feudalism. It is therefore striking that there
“is hardly a trace of contractual feudal theory in the Policraticus.’ It
is, true that in one passage John of Salisbury accepts the feudal
doctrine that public offices are transmissible by descent like private
property; ? in a second he conceives the relation between the prince
and his subjects in terms of the oath of fealty; * in a third he denies
the right of tyrannicide to those who are bound by fealty to the
tyrant.‘ But these passages are exceptional; the whole view of the
state which is presented is at variance with the conception that
there is anything contractual or voluntary in its composition.
The obvious explanation of this failure to mirror a dominant con-
temporary tendency is almost certainly the true one — namely, that
John represents the standpoint and theory not of purely secular ,
“politics but of the Church. But this by no means implies that his
point of view is academic or aside from the main currents of practical
governmental development. On the contrary, the ecclesiastical
theory of the state was a powerful factor in practical politics through-
out the feudal period, in opposition to the distinctively feudal theory;
and it was precisely this ecclesiastical theory which was at the basis
of the pretensions of national monarchy against feudal aggression,
and which served to keep alive the conception of “commonwealth”
during an era of particularistic disintegration. Luchaire has pointed
out that the monarchy.of Hugh Capet and his immediate successors
was royalty of an ecclesiastical character, inheriting Roman tradi-
tions through the channel of church theory, and that at the era
of its lowest ebb it was prevented by this theory from ever degener-
ating into purely feudal suzerainty.® From the standpoint of prac-
tical development this body of ecclesiastical-Roman doctrine is ac-
1 This is noted by C. Schaarschmidt, Johannes Saresberiensis (Leipzig, 1862), p. $49.
2 Policraticus, v, 6. All references in subsequent footnotes which cite merely book and
chapter without title are to the Policraticus, Webb’s edition: Ioannis Saresberiensis Episcopt
Carnotensis Policratict siue de Nugis Curialium et Vestigiis Philosophorum Libri VIII,
ed. C. C. I. Webb, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909.
3 vi, 25; Lane Poole, op. cit. supra, p. 204, goes too far in saying that “‘there is not a trace
even of the terminology of feudalism.” * viii, 20.
5 Institutions Monarchiques (2d ed., Paris: Picard, 1891), I, 35-59; Guizot, Histoire de la
Civilisation en France (11th ed., Paris, 1869), III, 290 ff., 312 ff.
310 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salsbury
cordingly vital, in that it was tHe.doctrine which finally emerged
triumphant in the triumph of national monarchy; and its statement
by John of Salisbury is therefore significant as a stage in the trans-
mission of the idea of organic political unity from antiquity to
modern times. The heart of this body of doctrine was its conception
of kingship.
I |
There is no comparison of the relative merits of different forms
of government in the Policraticus. The conventional discussion of
the respective claims of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy is
an academic imitation of classical political theory which comes into
mediaeval thought only with the recovery of Aristotle’s Politics in
the following century. Monarchy is the only form of government
in which John is interested as a working reality, although he seems
conscious that there may be other forms.!
There is one kind of government, however, which John in several
passages sets up as an ideal in contrast to monarchy, to illustrate the
shortcomings of the latter. This is rule by judges, as it existed
among the people of Israel in the time of Samuel and before the
establishment of the Kingdom. John’s preference for such a govern-
ment is closely connected with, and serves to emphasize, his concep-
tion of the supremacy of a ready-made body of preéxisting “higher”’ ?
law. A king is not really needed by a people who follow this law
and submit to its dictates; all that they require is a judge to ad-
minister it among them as Samuel did. The beginning of kingship
marks a falling away from the purity of obedience to the law, and
was a token of God’s anger. “‘The earliest patriarchs,” says John,
“*followed nature, the best guide of life. They were succeeded by
leaders, beginning with Moses, who followed the law, and judges
who ruled the people by the authority of the law; and we read that
the latter were priests. At last, in the anger of God, they were
given kings, some good, many bad. For Samuel had grown old, and
when his sons did not walk in his ways, but followed after avarice
Roy A
3 For a treatment of the doctrine of “higher law” by John of Salisbury the reader is
referred to Section II of the Introduction to my forthcoming translation above referred to.
[ete taal
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 311
and uncleanness, the people, who perchance deserved that such
priests should be in authority over them, forced God, whom they
had despised, to give them a King.”! “‘And yet a King was not
truly needed, had not Israel after the likeness of the gentiles walked
crookedly and showed themselves not content to have God for their
. King.” ? “And if iniquity and injustice, banishing charity, had not
brought about tyranny . . . perhaps there would be no kingdoms at
all, since it is clear from the ancient historians that in the beginning
these were founded by iniquity as encroachments agpinet God or
were extorted from Him.” ?
These passages form an interesting link between important earlier
and later theories. They reach back to the patristic doctrine that in
the state of innocence there was no coercive government, and that
it was sin which caused God to set men over one another, subjecting
some to the authority of others. In the language of St Augustine,
the primitive just men were rather shepherds of their flocks than
kings of men.‘ On the other hand, the same passages reach forward
to the important distinction taken by the author of the second book
of the de Regimine Principum between “political” and “regal”
‘rule. Political rule was that of the judges of Israel. This was suited
to man in the uncontaminated state of human nature which was
called the state of innocence; but in the state of sin, regal rule is
~ more beneficial. ‘Therefore the rod of discipline, which all men
Pa See the rigor of justice, are necessary in the goverance of the
world because thereby the people and the rude untutored multitude
are the better ruled.”’ > Whether St Thomas wrote this passage or
not, the distinction which it drew came to be identified with a similar
distinction which he based on Aristotle’s Polttics,® and formed the
1 viii, 18. 2 iv, 8. viii, 17.
# de Ciuitate Det, xix, 15; Irenaeus, adv. Haer., v. 24; R. W. and A. J. Carlyle, History of
Mediaeval Political Theory in the West (New York: Putnam, 1908), I, 126-129. et Isidore held
that temporal rulership would not be necessary if men would heed the preaching of God’s law L
and did not require to be coerced, Lib. Sent., iii, 51, quoted by Jonas of Orleans (ca. 880), de
Institutione Regia, iv (in D’Achéry, Spicilegium, 2d ed., Paris, 1723, 1, $324 at 330; also in
Migne, Pat. Lat., CVI, 292); by Hugh of Fleury, ca. 1100, “* Tractatus de Regia Potestate et
Sacerdotali Dignitate, i, 4, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Ltbelli de Lite, Il, 469.
5 Thomas Aquinas, de Regtmine Principum, ii, 9 in Opera, (Parma ed., 25 vols., 1852-
1873) XVI, 244.
® Com. tn Aristot. Pol., iii, lects. 18, 15 in Opera Parma ed., XXI, 489 ff., 496 ff.
312 Kingshrp in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
groundwork of Fortescue’s famous distinction between the English
and French monarchies.'
John of Salisbury, when contrasting monarchy with government
ee 5 a
by judges, represents thé former as essentially despotic in character.
‘And so Saul was elected with the aforesaid right of a King, namely
that he might take their sons and make them his charioteers, and
take their daughters to bake his bread and cook his food, and take
their fields and lands to distribute at his pleasure among his servants,
and in short oppress the whole people beneath the yoke of slavery.” ?
‘This conception of kingshi* id out of line with the main trend of
John’s views on monarchy. It represents a direction of thought
which, however congenial with his extreme doctrine of the self-
sufficiency of law, is not the direction that he chose in the main to
follow. On the other hand, the theory of kingehip-which_hedevel-
oped in detail embraces. at least two. distinet-elemente-which it is
difficult to harmonize.
John insists in numerous passages that the king is the “‘represen-
tative” of the commonwealth.‘ He is “the minister of the common
interest .. . and bears the public person.” © He must regard himself
as only the servant of the people.® He is an “‘officer,”’ and his acts
are not his own, but those of the wniuersitas, or corporate community,
in whose place he stands.” This conception of kingship as represen-
tative or ministerial is in line with a current of opinion which was
emphasized in twelfth-century thought by the revived study of the
Corpus Iuris. A famous text based the authority of the emperor on
a lex regia whereby the Roman people had transferred their power
to him.* Therefore the glossators explained the position of the
emperor as that of a “‘representative” or “‘vicar”’ of the people. It
happens that the earliest passages in the writings of the jurists which
1 “This Diversite is wel taught bi Seynt Thomas in his boke wich he wrote, Ad Regem
Cipri de Regimine Principum.” Fortescue, Governance of England, ch. 1 (ed. C. Plummer,
Oxford, 1885), p. 110. 2 viii, 18.
3 The identification of kingship and tyranny in connection with the theory of the origin
of government, and the resulting inconsistency between this view and the attempt made
elsewhere to draw a clear distinction between a king and a tyrant, reproduce themselves
in the continuation of St Thomas’s de Regimine Principum; cf. ii, 9, and iii, 9.
4 v, 2. § iv, 2. 6 iv, 1. 7 vy, 4.
8 Dig., i, 4, 1; Inst., i, 2, 6.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 318
develop this view are probably a little later than the Policraticus, or
approximately contemporaneous with it;? but it was a view which
was to become the orthodox legal doctrine of the next century,? and
for that reason its early statement by John of Salisbury is all the
more remarkable and significant.
It does not, however, represent John’s dominant conception of
the position of the monarch. He regards him for the most part(not
as the representative of the people,Wut as the “image of God on
earth.” * His ministry is conferred on him not by the people but by
God. “All power is from the Lord God; the power which the prince
has is therefore from God, for the power of God is never lost nor
severed from him, but He merely exercises it through a subordinate
hand.”’* The power of the prince is “‘instituted by God for the pun-
ishment of evil-doers and for the reward of good men.” > The prince
“is placed at the apex of the commonwealth by the divine govern-
ance.” ® Kingship is an honor bestowed by God,’ and a criminal
attempt against the prince is an attempt against God Himself.* “He
is subject only to God and to the priesthood, who represent God
upon earth; * and he will be judged by God and held to account for
his ministry.” !°
The later Middle Ages were troubled by the problem of recon-
ciling the doctrine that, on the one hand, the ruler was the agent or
1 Com. ad. Dig. Tit. “de Diuersis Regulis Iuris” (Dig. L., 17), attributed to Bulgarus,
reg. 176, ed. F. G. C. Beckhaus, Bonn, 1856, p. 112; Placentinus, Summa Institutionum, i, 2,
quoted in Carlyle, Htst.of Medtaeval Political Theory, II, 58. (I have been unable to consult the
original as there is no copy in the library of Harvard University or of the Harvard Law School.)
Tourtoulon places the work of Placentinus after 1166, Vie de Placentin, (Thése pour le
Doctorat, Paris, Chevalier-Maresq, 1896), pp. 120, 121. It is impossible to date Bulgarus’s
commentary accurately; if it was his work, as Savigny supposes (Geschichte des riémischen
Rechts im Mittelalter, Heidelberg, 1826, IV, 94 ff.), it might have been written before 1156 and
probably before 1159 (Ibid., 86, 87).
2 Aquinas, Summa Theol., Prima Secundae, q. 90, art. 3; Baldus, Com. on Code (Venice,
1586), X, rubr. 1, nr. 12, 18, 18; other citations in Otto Gierke, Political Theortes of the Middle
Age, tr. F. W. Maitland (Cambridge: University Press, 1900), p. 122, notes 210-217 incl.
3 Cf. Hugh of Fleury, Tract. de Reg. Pot., i, 3: “‘rex in regni sui corpore patris omnipotentis
optinere uidetur imaginem”; Suger, “Vita Ludoutct,”’ in Oeuvres Completes, ed. A. Lecoy de la
Marche (Paris: Société de I’Histoire de France, 1867), p. 72: “partum Dei cuius ad uiuifican-
dum portat rex imaginem.”’ See J. Flach, Les Origines de l’ Ancienne France (Paris: Larose,
1904), ILI, 236 ff.
4 iv, ly 5 Iind. 6 v, 6. 7 vi, 26.
8 vi, 25. 9 vy, 2. 10 iv, 10; iv, 12; vi, 1.
814 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
representative of the people, and, on the other hand, that he held
his power from God.? John does not seem to have felt the difficulty,
perhaps because he had a solution for it. “The commonwealth,” he
says, “stands in the same relation to the prince as a ward to a guar-
dian.”’? In other words, the prince is responsible for the comman-
wealth, but not to it; he represents it legally, but bis responsibility
“runs to the legal authority to which he owes his appointment,
namely to God. The same idea is differently expressed in another
passage: “The prince is the Lord’s servant, but he performs his
service by faithfully serving his HO avers namely his sub-
jects.” >
This solution evades the necessity of taking one side or the other
upon an issue which was of immediate practical consequence in the
twelfth century — the issue, namely, between elective_and_heredi-
_tary monarchy. In the C arolingian period the conventional formulae
of public acts described the Frankish kings as “‘elected by the whole
people.” ‘ During the feudal era the baronage had succeeded for a
time in France,® and permanently m Germany, in making the elec-
tion more than a mere formality. In England, at least the form of
election seems to have prevailed down to the time of Edward the
First.’ At the very era when the Poltcraticus was being written, the
French and English monarchs were finally succeeding in making the
crown hereditary in their families through the practice of securing
the election and coronation of the heir during the lifetime of his
predecessor.®. “Philip Augustus was the first of his race who felt
himself strong enough to dispense with the designation and corona-
tion of his son during his own life-time. It had taken two centuries |
for the dynasty of Hugh Capet to attain this result.” ° During the
1 For efforts to effect a reconciliation see Gierke, op. cit. supra, p. 146, notes 140 and 141.
2 v, 7, 3 iv, 7.
4 Flach, Les Origines de l Anctenne France, ITI, 238 ff.
5 See Luchaire, Instttuttons Monarchiques, I, 61-86.
6 Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, 7 ed., pp. 226 ff.
7 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England (4th ed., Oxford, 1906), II, 107.
8 Luchaire, op. cit., I, 61, 69. Henry II of England had his eldest son, Henry, crowned
twice: first in 1170 (G. B. Adams, Political History of England, 1066-1216, London and New
York: Longmans, 1905, p. 293), and again with his wife in 1172 (Iiid., p. $09).
§ Luchaire, op. cit., p. 87.
|
\
i
|
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 315
whole period when the hereditary and elective principles were-con-
tending with one another,current theory sought.to evade. difficul-_
ties by accepting both at the same time, and refusing to see an
inconsistency between them. The typical formulae run to the effect
that the king is ‘“‘rex iure hereditario, .. . et mediante tam cleri quam
popult unanimi consensu et fauore”’;' or as Ivo of Chartres explained,
‘Ture in regem est consecratus cut ture hereditario regnum competebat
et quem communis consensus episcoporum et procerum rtampridem
eligerat.”’ ?
In fact, this mixed theory of election and heredity was not so
much the result of a mere failure to distinguish between the two as NS
it was the outcome of a carefully devised argument which formed
an important element in that ecclesiastical tradition of political
thought which John of Salisbury represents. The full statement of
this theory is perhaps the point at which the Poltcraticus sheds the
most direct light on the institutional history of its era.
John starts from the position that “the kingly power is not born
of flesh and blood, since in the bestowal thereof regard for ancestry
ought not to prevail over merits and virtues.” * Again he says that,
while ordinarily public offices descend to the heirs of the holder,
governance of the people does not so descend as a matter of right,
but is bestowed upon one who has in him the spirit of God, and has
a knowledge of the law.‘ [The » theory of absolute hereditary right is
thus rejected. On the other hand, John is equally far from accepting
an unrestricted freedom of election by the community. | In describing
the “ordination” of a Hebrew king, and implying that it is a model
to be followed in instituting rulers, he says, “‘Here is plainly no ac-
1 Rymer, Foedera, ed. Adam Clarke and Fred. Holbrooke (Gr. Britain, Pub. Records
Com., London, 1816), I, i, 75. Cf. the account of the succession of Richard I, given by Ralph
de Diceto: “Comes ttaque Pictauorum Ricardus haereditario iure promouendus tn regem post
tam cleri quam popult solempnem et delitam electionem tnuolutus est triplict sacramento,”
“*Imagtnes Historiarum,” anno 1189, Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series, LX VIII, ii, 68.
2 Recuetl des Historiens de France, par les Benedictins de Saint Maur (nouv. ed., L.
Delisle, Paris, 1869 et seq.), XV, 144. For the combination of hereditary and elective theory
in the Empire, see G. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte (2d ed., ed. G. Seeliger, Berlin:
Weidmann, 1896), VI, 163 ff. Cf. the account of accession of Otto I in “‘Annales Qued-
linburgenses,”” Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, 111, 54: “‘Henricus rex obiit...
cuius filius Otto ... iure haereditario paternis eligitfir succedere regnis.”
3 iv, 3. 4 v, 6.
ed
316 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
clamation by the people, any more than a title founded upon ties of
blood’’; but the prince should be chosen in the presence of the
people, “‘so that afterwards no man may have ground for retraction,
and no least scruple of uncertainty may remain to cloud his title.” }
John is particularly opposed to the efforts of kings to ensure the
succession of their heirs. “Why is it,”’ he asks, “that the poor are
crushed beneath wrongs and outrages, made lean with exactions,
despoiled by manifold and oft repeated rapine, why are the peoples
bidden to clash together in arms and shake the world, to no end
but that princes may be succeeded by their natural heirs?” ? “To-
day all are actuated by the single motive of making their children,
no matter what the character of the latter may be, resplendent with
riches and honors rather than with virtues. They even neglect and
forget that the burden and responsibility of the common weal rest
upon them.” ®
f thus neither election nor hereditary right affords a sufficient
asis for the royal title, whence is it derived? John derives it from
God, through election /for Jnheritance ar-such other means as God in sas God in.
the g given instance chooses to employ. “The prince is placed by the
divine governance at thé apex of the commonwealth, “sometimes
through the secret ministry of God’s providence, sometimes by the
decision of His priests, and again it is the votes of the whole people
which concur to place the ruler in authority.””‘ Having been so
chosen, if he then proceeds to discharge his office faithfully and in
accordance with divine law, a presumptive right arises in his children
to succeed him. “The father is succeeded by the son if the latter
imitates the father’s justice. Parents will be succeeded by their
children if these shall have faithfully followed them in obeying the
commandments of the Lord. ... Since there is nought which men
more desire than to have their sons succeed in their possessions,
therefore this promise is given to princes as the greatest incentive
to the practice of justice. . . . It is the privilege of a prince to have
his sons succeed him without any question and in continuance of
the original grant from God unless their princely power is sub-
verted as a result of iniquity.” ® “It is not right to pass over in
1 v, 6. 3 y, 7. 3 iv, ll. ‘v, 6. § iv, ll.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 317
favor of new men the blood of princes, who are entitled by the
divine promise and the right of family to be succeeded by their own
children provided they have walked in the judgments of the Lord.”’!
What the theory amounts to, then, is this: that heredity estab-
lishes a presumptive or defeasible title,which, if abused either by the
incumbent, his predecessor, or the claimant to the succession, is
capable of being divested by human action pursued in execution of
the judgment of God, and by virtue of authority derived from Him.
This was substantially the form in which a compromise between the
hereditary and elective principles was maintained by church theory
during the two centuries from the election of Hugh Capet to the end
of the twelfth century.? On the former occasion it was expressed by
Adalbero of Rheims: “‘We are not ignorant that Charles of Lorraine
has partisans who pretend that the throne belongs to him by right
of birth. But if the question is stated in this way we shall reply that
royal power is not acquired by hereditary right, and that he alone
should be elevated to it who is designated not only by his birth and
family but also by the wisdom of his spirit and who finds his natural
support in his faithfulness to religion, his chief strength in his great-
ness of soul.’ What is substantially the same view is set forth in
the much-disputed speech attributed to Archbishop Hubert of Can-
terbury on the occasion of the “election” of King John of England.
“Let your discretion know,” the Archbishop is made to say, ‘that
no one has a right to succeed another in the Kingship unless after
the invocation of the Holy Spirit he is chosen by the unanimous
approval of the uniuersitas of the kingdom, having been previously
designated for the post because of his preéminence in good qualities,
according to the example and likeness of Saul whom God set over
1
3 inconsistency between the two elements of the theory, heredity and election, was
already breaking apart in the investiture controversy at the end of the eleventh century. The
imperialists were driven to advance a theory of indefeasible hereditary right: Petrus Crassus,
““Defensio Henrici Regis,” vi (Monumenta Germantae Historica, Libelli de Lite, 1, 432 ff); Liber
de unitate ecclesia conseruanda i, 18 (Ltbelli de Lite, 11, 173). On the other hand, Manegold of
Lautenbach for the papalists rested royal authority on delegation by the people: Liber ad
Gebehardum, xxx, xlvii (ed. K. Franke, Libelli de Lite, 1, $08 ff.). See A. Fliche, ‘Les Théories
Germaniques de la Souveraineté,”’ in Resue Historique (May-June, 1917), CX XV, 1 ff.
3 Richer, iv, 11,ed.G. Waitz (Scriptores Rerum Germantcarum in usum scholarum, Hanover,
1877), pp. 182-83.
\
818 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
His people although he was not the son of a king nor even sprung
from a‘royal stock; and of David likewise, the son of Semey, who
succeeded him, the one because he was able and fit for the royal
dignity, the other because of his holiness and humanity; thus show-
ing that he who excels all in the kingdom in point of ability should
be set over all in power and rulership. But if any of the family of
the deceased king so excels others, his election must be consented to
all the more readily and promptly.” !
Read in the light of contemporary doctrine as developed in the
Policraticus, there is no need to see in Hubert’s speech the announce-
ment of the principle of election in any modern sense, or to regard
it as exceptional in the way that Stubbs seems to do.” It is merely
the emergence of the conventional view upon an opportunity and
from a source from which it might naturally be expected to emerge.
e should make a serious mistake if we supposed that the elective
element was conceived with anything like the sharpness of nine-
teenth, or the hereditary element with anything like the legitimate
absolutism of eighteenth-century, theory. Both were outlined with
a hazy informality, which was no doubt all the more congenial to
church writers because of the opportunity which was thus left to the
Church to intervene in doubtful cases and declare upon the highest
authority the will of God. But John cautiously refrains from saying
that the power of decision rests always with the priesthood; it is
true that they always have the power of deposition because they
have the power of conferring royalty; ‘ but it is only sometimes that
God works through this power, and He frequently employs other
equally valid agencies to elevate his chosen candidate to royal office.®
The conception of the king’s title as derived from God goes hand
in hand with the conception of his “‘office”’ as a religious one. “Every
1 Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series, LVII, ii, 454, 455.
3 Stubbs, Const’l Hist., I, 454. Election was only a channel through which God mani-
fested his will, See Maurice Prou, in preface to his edition of Hincmar, “‘De Ordine Palatis,”
Bibl. de L’ Ecole des Hautes Etudes, fasc. 58 (Paris, 1885), p. xxix.
3 See the very interesting “‘opinion’”’ handed down by Innocent III when he undertook
to decide the case of the disputed election of Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick to the
Empire (1201) in J. L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, Historica diplomatica Fridericit secundi (Paris:
Plon, 1852-61), I, 70-76; also in Migne, Pat. Lat., CCXVI, 1025-31.
4 iv, 3. 5 vy, 6.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 319
office existing under and concerned with the execution of the sacred
laws is really a religious office.” ! A great part of the Poltcraticus 1s
taken up with a discussion of the duties of the ruler conceived from
this point of view. The discussion is illuminating as disclosing abso-
lutely no distinction between what we should to-day class as pune
and private duties.” [The king should be chaste and avoid avarice; *
he should be learned in letters; “ he should be humble; ® he should
banish from his realm actors and mimes, buffoons and harlots; ¢ he_
should seek the welfare of others and not his own; ’ he should wholly
forget the “affections of flesh and blood and do only that which is
demanded by the welfare and safety of his subjects; he should be
both father and husband to them; he should correct their errors
with the proper remedies; ® he should be affable of speech and gener-
ous in conferring benefits; he should temper justice with mercy; 1°
he should punish the wrongs and injuries of all, and all crimes, with
even-handed equity; " he has duties to the very wise and the very
foolish, to little children and to the aged; ” his shield is a shield for
the protection of the weak, and should ward off the darts of the
-
”
wicked from the innocent; he must act on the counsel of wise men;"4 -~
he must protect the widow and the orphan;'* he must curb the malice
of officials and provide for them out of the public funds, to the end
that all occasion for extortion may be removed, '® he must restrain
the soldiery from outrage; " he should be learned in law and in mili-
tary science; /* he must in all things provide for the welfare of the
lower classes; 1® he must avoid levity; ?° he is charged with the dis-
posal of the means of the public welfare," and is the dispenser of
honor; 22 he must not close his ear to the cries of the poor; * he must
raise aloft the roof-tree of the Church and extend abroad the wor-
1 iv, 3.
2 Augustine, still living in the classical tradition, had recognized such a distinction.
Ad Bon., Ep. 50, v, § 19. This letter appears as No. 185 in en edition, Pat. Lat.,
XXXII, 801. (Biv, 5. feree
* iv, 6. Hugh of Fleury would have the king learn to read, “ut acuatur cotidie eius ingentum
lecttone diutnorum librorum.” Tract. de Reg. Pot., i, 6.
8 iv, 7. 6 iv, 4. liv, 8. Biv, 8. 9 iv, 8.
10 Thid. Ul iv, 2. 12 iv, 3. 13 iv, 2. Mv, 6.
18 Ibid. 16 vy, 10. YW vi, 1. 18 vi, 2. 19 vi, 20, 25.
20 vi, 93. 21 vi, 24. Cacsee . 23 vi, 27.
}
'
ar nn 4
S
320 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
ship of religion; ! he must protect the Church against sacrilege and
rapine; ? and finally, he must ever strive so to rule that in the whole
community over which he presides none shall be sorrowful.*
This patriarchal-ecclesiastical conception of monarchyand gov-
ernment forms D mais Sa a tradition which_had become dominant
sometime before the reign of Justinian and was destined to cag
western thought until almost the end of the sixteenth century.¥ It
emerges with especial emphasis in the Carolingian period,° and
‘writes itself into coronation oaths and official documents. Thus
Otto the First, when crowned King of the Franks, swore that he
would “‘drive out all the enemies of the Christ by the divine au-
thority committed to him, and would stretch out the hand of pity
to the ministers of God and to all widows and orphans, and never
be wanting in the oil of mercy.” * Barbarossa seems to have sworn
“to defend the Church and the clergy of God, to keep peace and
order, and to protect the widows and the fatherless and all his people,
to the end that those who obeyed and trusted him might rejoice, and
that he might win glory in the sight of men and eternal life with the
King of Kings.” ” Bishop Adalbero at the election of Hugh Capet
told the assembly, “You shall have him for a father; for who of you
when in trouble shall not be able to take refuge with him and find
in him a patron and protector?” ® It is interesting to note that in
two treatises on royalty written during the Carolingian period,’
there is quoted the same passage | from a work certainly not earlier
than the fifth h century,” 1 in which this ecclesiastical-patriarchal con-
1 vi, 26. 2 vi, 13. > vi, 6.
* See Sir Thomas More, Utopia, Everyman’s ed., pp. 39, 40, for substantially the same
conception of kingship as that of John of Salisbury; so also Bodin, Siz Livres de la République,
ii, 8; George Buchanan, de Jure Regni apud Scotos (appended to Buchanan’s Rerum Scoticarum
Historia, ed. J. Man, Aberdeen, 1762), xxxviii, xxxix, also Epigram. ii, 27; see P. Hume Brown,
George Buchanan, Humanist and Reformer (Edinburgh: Douglas, 1890), p. 254.
® Seeliger, Cambridge Mediaeval History, II, 656.
© Widukind, ii, 1, ed. Waitz. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, III, 438.
7 P. Jaffé, Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum (Berlin: Weidmann, 1864), I, 518; Wibaldi
Epp., no. 382. 8 Richer, Chron., ed. Waitz, p. 133.
* Jonas of Orleans, De Inst. Reg., iii; Hincmar of Rheims, De regis persona et regio min-
isterio, c. 2 (Migne, Pat. Lat., CX XV, 833, 835).
10 The passage is from a work entitled ‘‘De Duodecim Abusionibus Saeculi,” ix, wrongly
attributed by mediaeval writers to St Cyprian, and printed among his works (Migne, Pat.
Lat., 1V, 870, 877 ff.).
a \eingship in the Politraticus of John of Salisbury 321
~\Y
ception of royalty is very fully developed; and the passage as an
obviously important source of much of the later theory deserves
comparison with the statement of the ruler’s duties in the Policra-
ticus: ‘The justice of a King is this: not to use his power to oppress
any one; to judge between a man and his neighbor without respect
of persons; to be the defender of pilgrims and orphans and widows;
to prevent thefts; to punish adultery; not to exalt the wicked to
power; not to nourish unchaste persons and actors; to destroy the
wicked from the face of the earth; not to permit parricides and per-
_ jurers to live; to defend churches; to sustain the poor by alms; to
place righteous men in charge of the business of the realm; to have
old men and wise men and sober men for his counsellors; not to
give ear to the superstitions of magicians, soothsayers and fore-
casters; to put away anger; to defend the land bravely and mght-
eously against foes; to live in God in all things; to hold the Catholic
faith in God; not to permit his sons to act wickedly; to attend prayers
at regular hours; not to take food before the appointed hours.” ! -
This passage practically sums up all that John of Salisbury has to
_ Say on the duties of the prince. He has nothing to add to it.”
1 This passage is adopted by Abbo of Fleury (ca. 990) as expressing his view of monarchy.
Recueil des Historiens de France, X, 627. The way in which it reached him is interesting. He
attributes it to the Sixth Council of Paris, canons ii, 1. The second book of canons of this
Council incorporates practically in its entirety the treatise of Jonas of Orleans referred to
above, including, of course, Jonas’s quotation from the de Abusionitbus.” (P. Labbé, Sacrosancta
Concilia, Venice, 1729, IX, 746 ff.; J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Amplissima Collectio,
Venice, 1769, XIV, 574 ff.). Prou thinks that the treatise of Jonas is a mere copy from the
canons, rather than that the canons are taken from the treatise; see his preface to Hincmar’s
“‘de Ordine Palatii,” Bibl. de l Ecole des Hautes Etudes, fasc. 58, p. xxv.
? For a similar conception of monarchy in Justinian’s Novels, see Bussell, The Roman
Empire (London: Longmans, 1910), II, 50 ff. The duties of a king are set forth as follows by
Hugh of Flavigny (ca. 1100): “The duty of a king is to rule the people of God in justice and
equity; to be the defender of churches, the protector of widows and orphans, to deliver the
poor man from the mighty and the needy man whom there is none to aid; and, like blessed Job,
to break the jaws of the unjust man and bear away his prey from his teeth; to be the father
of the poor, an eye to the blind and a foot to the lame.”’ (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores, VIII, 4386.) The passage is copied by Hugh of Fleury, Tract. de Reg. Pot., i, 6
(Libelli de Ltte, Il, 473). For a collection of passages from contemporaneous writers setting
forth the same view, see G. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte (2d ed., ed. G. Seeliger,
Berlin, Weidmann, 1896), VI, 469 ff. A familiar type of treatise consisted of a list of the virtues
proper to a king, and a moral discourse on each. Such is the Via Regia of Abbot Smaragdus,
a Carolingian writer (Migne, Pat. Lat., CII, 981 ff), and the first book of the De Principis
'
i
\
WV
L
>
822 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
The patriarchal-ecclesiastical conception of monarchy thus looked
upon the relations between the monarch and his is subjects as as purely
personal. Its ideal was Job sitting in the gate and rendering judg-
ment in favor of the widow and the poor man,' an ideal which was
actually realized in St. Louis’s well-known practice of doing justice
under the oak at Vincennes.” It ignored altogether the question of
_the organization of an administrative mechanism for establishing an
‘impersonal contact between government and the individual. There
is no hint of this problem in the Policraticus. Froin the theoretical
standpoint it thus omitted some of the most important problems of
the science of government. [From the practical standpoint it was at
once the cause and the reflection of the condition of affairs which
resulted in the administrative disintegration that we know as feudal-
ism.f The relation of the prince to his subjects being conceived as not
essentially different from their relation to one another, there follows
naturally the disintegration of public law into private law which
characterizes the Middle Ages. The relation of the subjects to one
another being conceived as not different from their relations to the
prince, there resulted the establishment by the more powerful sub-
jects of what practically amounted to political power over their
lesser neighbors. The same tendency was furthered by the concep-
tion of princely power as paternal; every lord of a large household
was necessarily regarded by John of Salisbury % as in some sort a
prince. The patriarchal conception of authority thus worked toward
the same result as the conception of a preéstablished higher law.‘
Furthermore, the existence of only a personal, as distinguished from
an institutional, bond between the prince and his subordinate off-
Instructione of Giraldus Cambrensis at the end of the twelfth century (Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer,
J. F. Dimock, and G. F. Warner, Rolls Series, XXI, viii). Cf. also Sedulius Scotus,
Liber de Rectoribus Christiants (Migne, Pat. Lat., CIII, 291).
1 vy, 6, 8.
2? De Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. Natalis de Wailly (Paris: Firmin Didot,
1874), p. 35. 3 vi, 22, 27.
‘ “The mediaeval view of government admitted and indeed required that wealth and
social influence should be accompanied by political power. . . . Every householder had some
jurisdiction under his roof-gutter and within the hedge. Personal authority over domestic
servants and slaves took among other things the shape of criminal and police jurisdiction.”
P. Vinogradoff, Cambridge Mediaeval History, II, 651.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 323
cials operated on the one hand to make efficient supervision of the
administrative system impossible, and on the other hand to place
their relations on a footing of private law which lent a color of legality
to claims of feudal independence. Feudalism was thus bred in part
from the very ideas of personal absolutism which superficially seem
most strongly opposed to it. Its persistence was to some degree due
to the fact that its presuppositions were accepted by its opponents.!
The absence of any sense of the need for organizing on an institu-
tional basis the relations between the prince and his subordinates no
doubt accounts for the scandalous venality of the bureaucracy which
so much of the Policraticus is devoted to castigating.? It is a result
which always follows from such a cause; it did so in the Byzantine
Empire,* and in the Renaissance monarchies of the sixteenth cen-
tury.‘ The restraining influence of purely personal supervision is
entirely inadequate to control a large body of officials functioning
over a wide territorial area; an institutionalized system of respon-
_ sibility can alone develop the tradition and enforce the practice of
honest efficiency. It has been well said that, when more power is
conferred upon the people than they are able to exercise, effective
control is really taken from them; 5 and similarly, when more power
is left in the hands of the prince than he can humanly exercise, effec-
tive power passes really to an irresponsible bureaucracy.
John is innocent of any idea of correcting the abuses of adminis-
tration by an institutional organization of public functions under the
prince. Everything rests in his personal pleasure. Everything is
‘“ guided solely by the determinations of his own mind.” * And this
absolutism is tinctured with elements which enable us to see the
patriarchal origins of the feudal point of view. The prince is in a
1 ‘When the French kings by the middle of the fourteenth century had succeeded in getting
possession of the greater feudal principalities which they had been striving to control for more
than two centuries, they could think of nothing better to do with them than to parcel them
out as ‘appanages’ among younger members of the royal family in whose hands they became
the basis of a new feudalism. See R. Lodge, The Close of the Middle Ages, 46.
? v, 10, 11, 15, 16; vi, 1.
> Bussell, The Roman Empire, LI, 58 ff., 93 ff.
* L. Einstein, Tudor Ideals (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1921), pp. 56-62.
* Henry Jones Ford, Rise and Growth of American Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1911),
p. 299. 6 v, 6.
324 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
sense the owner of all the goods of his subjects. Private law is again
called into play, and the subjects are conceived as mere tenants by
su es; and “‘ when the advantage of the ruling power so requires,
they are not so much owners of their possessions as mere custodians.
But if there is no pressure of necessity, then the goods of the pro-
vincials are their own, and not even the prince himself may lawfully
abuse them.”’! On the other hand “the prince will not regard as his
own the wealth of which he has the custody for the account of
others, nor will he treat as private the property of the fisc, which is
acknowledged to be public. Nor is this any ground for wonder since
he is not even his own man, but belongs wholly to his subjects.” ?
This is a view which can easily degenerate into the claim of the over-
lord to ownership of all the goods of his vassals; * while in its essence
it seems to approach quite nearly to the modern conception of trus-
teeship. (The king can take and use the goods of his subject when
necessary for the common advantage; and he is accountable not to
their judgment but only to the “higher law.” Implicit belief in the
certainty of this law and its enforcement serves to conceal the danger
of entrusting sugh power to an individual. On the other hand, a
power of “‘eminérit domain”! had obviously to be vested somewhere;
and John and his contemporaries were incapable of conceiving it as
vested in the state itself because they could not yet conceive of the
untuersitas as acting except through the prince, or as having a
persona of its own, apart from the persona of the prince. In other
words, they had to think in terms of trusts and not of corporations;
and they could do that without difficulty because they had the
“higher law” to fall back upon. { John’s inability to conceive of
ae community action against, or otherwise than through the agency of,
the prince stands out with especial clarity in his doctrine of tyranny,
and of the means to be pursued in dealing with it.‘ a
oN
1 vi, 1. 2 iv, 5. 3 See More, Utopia, Everyman’s Library, p. 38.
‘ For a treatment of the power of the Church as a limit upon the monarch’s authority, the
reader is referred to Section IV of the Introduction to my forthcoming translation, above
referred to. In contrast to the view of Gierke and Schaarschmidt, I incline to the opinion
that John’s theory of ecclesiastical supremacy cannot be strictly interpreted in terms of con-
stitutional law because John recognized no clear distinction between constitutional and merely
moral considerations. See Ernst Schubert, Die Staatslehre Johanns con Salisbury (Erlangen
diss., Berlin, 1897), pp. 36, 49.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 325
II
The doctrine of the Policraticus is that there can be “‘tyranny”
wherever there is rulership. “Tyranny exists not only in the case
of princes, but everyone is a tyrant who abuses power that has
been granted to him from above over those who are subjected to
him.”’! “In common speech the tyrant is one who oppresses a whole
people by rulership based on force; and yet it is not only over the
people as a whole that a man can play thé tyrant, but he can do so,
if he will, in the meanest station.” ? . . . “It is not only kings who
practice tyranny, but among private men there are a host of tyrants,
since the power which they have, they turn to some forbidden ob-
ject. oe (These passages illustrate the absence of any clear distinction
in John’s thought between the moral and the political; abuse of
public power is conceived simply 3 in terms of a breach of ‘personal
morality. '
So there may be tyranny on the part of persons holding eccle-
siastical as well as temporal offices; ‘ and “‘of the two kinds the ec-
clesiastical tyrant is worse than the temporal.” 5 Much of John’s
discussion of the behavior of tyrants has reference to the ecclesiasti-
cal variety; > but his theory of temporal tyrants 1 is far more com-
plete and well defined.
In the sphere of temporal rulership the difference between a
prince and a tyrant is that the prince obeys “‘the law,” while the
tyrant ‘“‘oppresses the people by rulership based upon force, and
regards nothing as accomplished unless the laws are brought to
nought and the people reduced to slavery.” ® John then quotes the
traditional etymology of ‘“‘rez,” which derived it from “‘recte,” and
gave a basis for the argument that he alone is entitled to the name
1 viii, 18. “Tyrant” is a name frequently applied, from the Carolingian period onward, 7
to the feudal magnates who were forcibly extending their authority. Einhard, Vita Karolt,
ii; Suger, Vita Ludoutct, xxiii, Oeuvres, ed. Lecoy de la Marche, pp. 92, 98.
2 viii, 17. 3 Ibid. ‘ viii, 28.
5 See especially vii, 17; viii, 17, 28.
6 viii, 17. The idea that the difference between a prince and a tyrant consists in the fact
that the one rules in accordance with law, and the other not, goes back in ecclesiastical tradi-
tion to Gregory is Great, Com. on Job, xv, 20 (in Moralia, xii, Migne, Pat. Lat., LXXV,
1006).
—
JNN
826 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
of king who rules rightly.'! This leads to the further inference that
the will of the prince cannot be unjust or opposed to the law, be-
cause when it becomes so he then ceases to be truly a prince and
becomes a tyrant instead. “The will of the true ruler depends upon
the law of God .. . but the will of a tyrant is the’slave of his desire.”’ ?
It is therefore quite proper to say that the will of the prin¢ée has the
force of law, because, in so far as he is truly a prince, his will cannot
fail to be in accordance with the law.’ ‘‘* Who, indeed, in respect of
public matters can properly speak off the will of the prince at all,
since therein he may not lawfully have any_will of 1 -his-omn, apart
from that which the law or equity enjoins, or the calculation of the
common interest requires? For in these matters his will is to have
the force of a judgment; and most properly that which pleases him
therein has the force of law, because his decision may not be at
variance with the intention of equity.” 4 (- GalN
Having by this sleight-of-hand reconciled Ahe doctrine of a
“higher law” with the text “Quod principt placet,” it would no
doubt have been possible for John toproceed to the conclusion later
reached by Bartolus that some or all of the acts of the tyrant are
legally void, and that his rule is without authority;® but he does not
do so; for his way is here blocked-by another current of authority
to which he could hardly have dared to refuse deference. This is the
tradition proceeding from the scriptural texts, ““The powers that be
are ordained of God,” ® and “‘Servants, obey your masters.” ? The
tyrant must be regarded as holding his power from God no less than
the true prince, for “all power is from the Lord God. . . . It is not
the ruler’s own act when his will is turned to cruelty against his"
subjects, but it is rather the dispensation of God for His | good | pleasure
to punish or chasten them. Power is worthy of veneration even n when
1 Hor., Ep., i, 1, 59, 60. The definition seems to have come into serious political thought
with St Isidore of Seville, Etym., ix, 8, 4 (Migne, Pat. Lat., LX XXII, 342).
2 viii, 22.
3 Dante attempted to show realistically that one who was sole monarch of the world must
have a will directed toward good, for there is no object of selfish ambition left for him to desire
— de Monarchia, i, 11, 5. ¢ iv, 1.
& See Bartolus, de Tyrannia, trans. in E. Emerton, Humanism and Tyranny (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1925), especially c. vii, pp. 134 ff.
$ iv, 1. 7 vi, 27.
x
,
( x
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 327
+ |
it comes as a plague upon the elect.”’? “Even tyrants of the gentiles
who have been damned unto death from eternity are yet the min-
isters of God and are called the gnointed of the Lord.” ?
In other words, tyranny is a part art. of God’s providential ordering
of the universe, and, as such, it must be met with due submission.
“Every power is good since it is from Him from whom alone are all
things, and from whom cometh only good. But at times it may not
be good, but rather evil, to the particular individual . . . upon whom
it is exercised, though it is good from the universal standpoint, being
the act of Him who uses our evil for His own good purposes. There-
fore the rule of a tyrant is good, although therg‘is nothing worse than
tyranny.” ? ‘‘Because of the wickedness of our generation, who are
continually provoking against ourselves the wrath of God, it more
frequently happens that power comes into the hands of bad, than
of good, men.” ‘ “‘For tyrants are demanded, introduced, and raised
to power by sin,” and “are properly deserved by a stiff-necked and
stubborn people.” > And just as God inflicts a tyrant upon a sinful
people, so when they turn from their wickedness, God frees them
from the oppressor.* A wicked king cannot escape the judgment of
God. “Run through the sequence of all the histories, and you will
see in brief the successions of Kings and how they were cut off by
God, like threads in the warp of a web.”’’ | Therefore the best way
to get rid of tyrants ‘‘is for those who are oppressed to take refuge
humbly in the protection of God’s mercy, and, lifting up undefiled
hands to the Lord, to pray devoutly that the scourge wherewith they
are afflicted may be turned aside from them.” ® For “the end of
tyrants is confusion, leading to destruction if they persist in malice,
to pardon if they repent and return to the way of nghteousness.”’ ®
Therefore a tyrant should be borne with in patience until he either
suffers a change of heart or falls in battle, or otherwise meets his end
—S ae
by the just judgment of God.!°
1 iv, 1. 2 viii, 18.
3 Ibid. This is a commonplace of the 12th century: “‘ De bonis et de malis bene facit Deus
qut omnia iuste facit atque dispontt. Et sic fit ut et malus angelus et malus homo diuinae militent
prouidentiae.” Hugh of Fleury, Tract de Reg. Pot., i, c. 4.
4 Ibid. 5 viii, 20. © Ibid.; also iv, 11. 7 iv, 12.
§ Cf. Hugh of Fleury, loc. cit. supra, note S. 9 viii, 21. 10 viii, 20.
828 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
The notion that in God’s good time tyrants are certain to meet
a bad end is part of the conventional tradition of ecclesiastical politi-
cal theory. It is found in the early work de Duodecim Abusvonibus
Saecult,! from which it is taken over by the Carolingian writers.
According to this text if the King fails in his duty, many evils will
come upon him and his land, his children will die, enemies will invade
the provinces, there will be storms and tempests, wild beasts will
devour the flocks, and his children will not inherit his throne.? In
other words, his ruin will be brought about through causes wholly
beyond the control of his subjects. They are encouraged to pray
and to wait passively in the faith that God is just and will do justice.
It is the strictly logical conclusion of the doctrine that tyrants are
ministers sent of God.
From this conclusion, John of Salisbury strikes off at an incon-
sistent tangent into one of the most interesting and characteristic
of his contributions to political thought. His point of departure
may have been the situation presented when the tyrant commands
the Christian subject to perform an act which is contrary to the
divine law. Here John’s theory of the “higher law” compels him to
say that the subject is bound to decline obedience. God must be
preferred before man.* “Loyal shoulders should sustain the power
of the ruler so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows
His ordinances; but if it resists and opposes the divine command-
ments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God; then
with unrestrained voice, I answer back that God must be preferred
before any man on earth.” 4
Whether in such a case John advocates active opposition by the
subject, or merely passive resistance, as Luther was afterwards to do
on practically the same premisses,® he does not make entirely clear.
He appears to feel that as a matter of policy passive resistance 1s
ordinarily best. ‘If princes have departed little by little from the
1 See above, p. 324, note 10.
2 de Duodecim Abusionibus Saeculi, ix; Jonas of Orleans, De Inst., Reg., iii; Hincmar of
Rheims, de Regis Persona et Regio Ministerio, ii.
3 vi, 9, 12. « vi, 25.
’ Cf. J. W. Allen, “The Political Conceptions of Luther,” in Tudor Studies, ed. R. W.
Seton-Watson (London: Longmans, 1924), pp. 98-100.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 329
true way, even so it is not well to overthrow them utterly at once,
but rather to rebuke injustice with patient reproof until finally it
becomes obvious that they are stiff-necked in evil-doing.”! But
there may come a time when active resistance is necessary: “‘Better
would it be by far were the diadem torn from the head of the prince
than that the good order of the chief and best part of the common-
wealth, which is the part concerned with religion, should be destroyed
at his pleasure.” ?
' The right of resistance thus established, the transition is almost
inevitable to the thought that here is qne of the instruments which
God can use in executing His-judgment upon tyrants. Why should
He be confined to resorting to the use of the inanimate forces of
nature or the attacks of foreign enemies rather than the arm of
the tyrant’s oppressed subjects? Since God must have an inter-
mediary in the physical world through which to administer His
vengeance, why is not a subject justified in becoming such an inter-
mediary? “Malice is always punished by God; but sometimes it is
His own, at others it is a human, hand which He employs to adminis-
ter punishinent to the unrighteous.” * This is apparently the chain
of inference which resulted in John’s famous doctrine of tyrannicide,‘
a doctrine which perhaps more than any other part of the Polzcra-
ticus engaged the attention of later mediaeval thinkers, and which
emerged into practical prominence during the period of the Counter-
Reformation.®
John bases his theory of tyrannicide on the authority of examples
drawn from scriptural, classical, and ecclesiastical history. Many
times, he says, the Children of Israel were in bondage to tyrants in
accordance with the dispensation of God, “‘and then, when they
cried aloud to God, they were set free. And when the allotted time
of their punishment was fulfilled, they were allowed to cast off the
yoke from their necks by the slaughter of their tyrants; nor is blame
i v, 6. 2 vii, 20. 3 viii, 21.
(/ John of Salisbury was the first mediseval writer to erect tyrannicide into a doctrine and
defend it with reasoned arguments. See Paul Gennrich, Die Staats- und Kirchenlehre Johanne
von Salisbury (Gotha; Perthes, 1894), pp. 106 ff.
6 See A. Douarche, de Tyrannicidio apud Scriptores xvi. Saeculs (Univ. Paris thesis,
Paris: Hachette, 1888).
”
sy
ew
Be se
830 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
attached to any of those by whose valor a penitent and humbled
people was thus set free, but their memory is preserved in affection
and honor by posterity as the servants of God.” ! By the example
of Sisera and Holofernes he “‘establishes” that “it is just for public
tyrants to be killed and the people set free for the service of God.” ?
These stories show that the use of “pious dissimulation” to lure
tyrants to their ruin “is not treachery because it serves the cause
of the faith, and fights in behalf of charity.” “‘Even priests of God
repute the killing of tyrants as piety, and if it should appear to wear
the semblance of treachery, they say that it is consecrated to God
by a sacred mystery.” But as for the use of poison against tyrants,
John says that he has not read that it is ever permitted by any law.
“Not that I believe that tyrants ought not to be removed from our
midst, but it should be done without loss of religion and honor.” ?
Similarly, “the histories all teach that none should undertake the
death of a tyrant who is bound to him by an oath or by the obliga-
tion of fealty.” With these limitations, “it is as lawful to kill a
tyrant as to kill a condemned enemy.” All these passages go merely
to show that tyrannicide is not unlawful and not that it is a positive
duty; indeed it is in connection with them that John expresses the
opinion, already quoted, that usually the safest and most useful
method of destroying tyrants is for those who are oppressed to pray
to God that their scourge may be removed; and he praises the for-
bearance of David, who, “although he had to endure the most
grievous tyrant, and although he often had an opportunity of de-
stroying him, yet preferred to spare him, trusting to the mercy of
God within Whose power it was to set him free without sin.” ®
Elsewhere, however, John represents tyrannicide as amounting to
ca public duty» “To kill a tyrant,” he says, “‘ is not merely lawful but
~
right and just. For whosoever takes up the sword deserves to perish
} by the sword. And he is understood to take up the sword who
usurps it by his own temerity and who does not receive the power
of using it from God. Therefore the law rightly takes arms against
him who disarms the laws, and the power of the public rages in fury
against him who strives to bring to nought the public force. And
1 viii, 20. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. § Ibid, 20.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 331
while there are many acts which amount to lése-majesté, none is a
graver crime than that which is aimed against the body of Justice
herself. Tyranny therefore is not merely a public crime, but, if
there could be such a thing, a crime more than public.: And if in
the crime of lése-mayjesté all men are admitted to be prosecutors, how
much more should this be true in the case of the crime of subverting
the laws, which should rule even over emperors? Truly no one will
avenge a public enemy, but rather whoever does not seek to bring
him to punishment commits an offence against himself and the
whole body of the earthly commonwealth.” !
John of Salisbury, it seems plain from this passage, had funda-
mentally no clear conception of the difference between private indi-
vidual action and public collective action to rid the community of
a tyrant. Or, rather, he seems to have been completely unable to
conceive of the community as capable of so ridding itself except by
private action; the need for, or the possibility of, organized collec-
tive action is not suggested. *Pit was the obvious danger latent in the
irresponsibility of private tyrannicide which caught the attention of
later thinkers and caused them to repudiate John’s position.St __
<[homas points out that it would be subversive of all civil order if
private individuals should claim the right to murder their governors
on the ground that they believed them tyrants. * Coluccio Salutati
undertakes to answer John specifically and denies that a single person
or even several together can properly take justice into their own
hands; the tyrant must be removed, if at all, only by the collective
1 iii, 15. This passage does not fall within the part of the Policraticus covered by my
translation. Unlike the references to tyranny in other parts of the work, it seems to emphasize
usurpation of authority as the essence of tyranny. This suggests a possible foreshadowing of Y
the later distinction between “tyrants by defect of title” and ‘‘tyrants by abuse of power.”’
See Bartolus in Emerton, Humanism and Tyranny, p. 18%. The notion that usurpers — i.e., |
“tyrants by defect of title” — might be lawfully resisted, although it was never lawful to
resist a legitimate hereditary ruler no matter how he might abuse his power, was advanced
by an imperialist writer at the end of theeleventh century : Liber de unitate ecclesiae conseruanda,
i, 18 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libelli de Lite, Il, 178 ff.). See A. Fliche, “Les Théories |
Germaniques de la Souveraineté,”’ Reoue Historique (May-June, 1917), CXXV, 1, 14.
* In the next generation after John of Salisbury, the doctrine of tyrannicide is stated as
&@ commonplace by Giraldus Cambrensis, de Principis Instructione, i, 16, Rolls Series, X XI,
vili, 56: ““Percussori tyranni non poena sed palma promittitur.”’ |
3 de Reg. Prin., i, 6.
Y
332 Kzingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
action of the community.! The question came to the attention of
all Europe in a vivid and dramatic way at the beginning of the fif-
teenth century, when the Council of Constance was called upon to
condemn a book written by one Jean Petit in which the murder of
Louis of Orleans at the instigation of the Duke of Burgundy was
defended on the ground of the right of tyrannicide. Petit cited the
Policraticus as an authority.? Gerson replied by arguing that to vest
the right of tyrannicide in a subject would be to make him the legiti-
mate judge of his ruler; and a legitimate judge, even the king him-
self, may not condemn an accused person without summons, trial,
and conviction. “‘Certainly no mere private individual can have
greater authority over one not lawfully subject to him than a king
has over his own subjects.” ®
John of Salisbury had based his doctrine of tyrannicide on the
conception that a private individual may lawfully act in his private
“capacity to enforce “‘the law” against Gis Heitimate ruler. What
later thought brought out was that law can’be enforced only by an
agent holding a legitimate mandate from the community. The
difference between these two conceptions registers the most momen-
tous advance in political thought during the interval; and it isolates
and emphasizes the cardinal element which: was missing from the
political thought of the Policraticus and the whole tradition which
it represents. John of Salisbury does not seem to have conceived
that the community, or untuersitas, could act except through the
prince.‘ If action was to be taken against him, it had therefore to
be taken as private individual action.’ This seems to stand out
clearly from the last passage quoted from the Policraticus. The
1 de Tyrannia, ii, in Emerton, Humanism and Tyranny, p. 92. But Coluccio apparently
holds that a private individual may assassinate a “tyrant by defect of title.” Ibid., p. 85.
2 See his Assertio Propositionum aduersus magistrum Ioannum de Gersono, Gerson, Opera
(Antwerp, 1706), V, 397.
3 “Reprobatio nouem Assertionum Ioannis Parut, Ibid., V, 363.
‘ This view is definitely expressed by Baldus in the fourteenth century: “‘imperator est
ipsum imperium,” Com. on Cod., X, Rubr., 1, no. 18; see also Baldus, Consilia, ILL, clix, nr. 5.
’ For a survival in the seventeenth century of the notion that there was no agency save
the conscience of individuals to judge whether a monarch had broken the “fundamental
laws,” see the passages from Philip Hunton’s Treatise of Monarchy, pp. 17 and 28, quoted and
criticized in Sir Robert Filmer’s Anarchy of Mixed Monarchy in The Freeholder's Grand In-
quest (ed. 1680), pp. 265, 272.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 333
action there contemplated against the price is public action; bu J
public action not taken through the prince cannot be organized ~
action; it can only be action by all or any, that is to say, action by
separate individuals. This is the natural outcome of the patriarchal
conception of society as an organized hierarchy; it is the same con-
ception which no doubt lay at the bottom of Bodin’s denial that
a representative assembly could do more than offer good advice to
the prince.!
But meanwhile m John of Salisbury’s own generation another
idea was taking form, which was to supply this missing element to
later thought. It was an idea which seems to have had its source
among the Roman lawyers, and it consisted in identifying the cor-
porate or organized community with the whole membership of the
group — the wniuersitas with the populus. Once this idea had taken
hold, it is no longer necessary to think that the community can act
as a community only through the prince who is set over them by
God; from now on they can act through whatever organization they
choose to shape for themselves. The idea of the King’s trusteeship 3
gives way before the idea of an autonomous corporation. The
uniuersitas ceases to be a mere inert thing whose persona is perma-
nently delegated to and “borne by” the prince; it becomes an active
unity, bearing its own persona, and capable of speaking and acting
for itself, against the prince if need be. This is the idea which is
already emerging in the speech of Archbishop Hubert at the corona-
tion of King John of England, above referred to; Hubert says that
it is the uniuersitas, not merely the clerus et populus, which must
& an to the choice of a King. In other words the uniuersitas can act
independently of, and even against, the King. The importance of the
idea for establishing a check on the King and eliminating the neces-
sity of resort to tyrannicide comes to a head in Bracton. Bracton,
like John of Salisbury, says that the King is the vicar of God and
as such is subject only to God; so that if he abuses his power, there
is room only for supplication that he should amend his ways, and if
he will not. do this, he must be left to the judgment of God. But
Bracton no more than John is content with this result; and by the
—_ 1 Siz Licres de la République, i, 8.
334 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
same sort of sudden inconsistency with which John had advanced
adds s that the : uniuersitas regni and baronagium, acting through the
King’s court, may restrain his tyranny.’ Here is the beginning of a
conception which men were more and more to grasp during the
thirteenth century, but which they were not to transform into effec-
tive political practice until the seventeenth and eighteenth centu-
ries.”
Meanwhile the doctrine of individual action in the form of tyran-
nicide was, apart from the self-limitation of their own power by
rulers,’ the only conceivable check upon despotism; and at the same
time it was the almost necessary inference from the doctrine of a
“higher law.” For, after all, Kings and governments and organized
communities had no peculiar prerogative to know and enforce that
law; it was binding upon them no less than upon private individuals,
and knowledge of it was the result of grace and wisdom, and not of
official position. If this view was honestly and fully accepted there
was nothing inherently objectionable in the idea that a private indi-
vidual might enforce the law by private action; for its precepts were
definite and uniform and were as accessible to private persons as to
officials. The doctrine of a higher law carried with it an inevitable
implication of what to-day would probably be called philosophic
anarchism.*
It is not hard to see that this philosophic anarchism forms an im-
portant strain running through the thought of the Policraticus. It
emerges in John’s yearning for a condition of society where there
would be no princely rule, but men in a state of innocence would live
together under “the law” in Christian love. “For if iniquity and
injustice, banishing charity, had not brought about tyranny, firm
1 Bracton, iv, 10.
2 The idea first takes a firm hold in G. Buchanan, de Iure Regnt apud Scotos, xxviii, and
in the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, ed. Laski (London: Bell, 1924), pp. 127-136.
ae
‘ For ee individualism, see Paul Gennrich, Die Staats- und Kirchenlehre Johanns von
Salisbury, p. 14; E. F. Jacob in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Mediaeval Thinkers
(ed. F. J. C. Hearnshaw, New York: Holt, 1923), pp. 61 ff. Gennrjch, loc. cit., points out the
significant absence from John’s thought of any consideration of the connection between indi-
vidual and social life, or of the “‘transition’”’ from one to the other.
Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 335
concord and perpetual peace would have possessed the peoples of the
earth forever, and no one would think of enlarging his boundaries.
Then kingdoms would be as peaceful, according to the great father
Augustine, and would enjoy as undisturbed repose as the separate
families in a well-ordered state, or as different persons in the same
family; or perhaps, which is even more credible, there would be no
kingdoms at all, since it is clear from the ancient histories that in the
beginning these were founded by iniquity.”’! Here comes to the
surface that combined current of Christian and Stoic thought which
church tradition was to carry forward from the days of the Apostles
to the days of Godwin and Shelley. The same thought lies behind
John’s reiterated assertion that it is the function of the prince to
reign and not to rule ?— the true. prince says, “I will not rule over
you, but God shall rule over you”; * under a good prince, it is not
the prince himself who governs, but the law.
In other words, the existence. of a complete code of intelligible
laws of divine authority practically eliminates the necessity of gov-
ernment except as a purely ministerial instrumentality of enforce-
ment; and in so far as men are good, they will obey without being
forced. There need not be, there must not be, any subordination
of one merely human “‘will”’ to another; for men can find agreement
and harmony in their contacts only by being shaped, or by shaping
themselves, to the passionless reason of the divine law. It is better
that they should shape themselves than that they should be shaped
by the power of government.
It
It is the very inconsistencies in the political thought of the Polt-
cralicus, and its blending of apparently incompatible elements, which
give it its principal value; for it discloses still in combination a num-
ber of separate strains of thought whose later dissociation was to
form the main currents of opposing doctrine for many succeeding
centuries. It presents the patriarchal theory of monarchy which, in
union with ideas derived from Renaissance Italy, was to culminate
1 viii, 17. 2 viii, 20, 22. 3 vill, 22.
336 Kingship in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury
“ in the seventeenth-century conception of personal absolutism. It
foreshadows the doctrine of the divine night of kings in its derivation
of the ruler’s title directly from God. In its insistence on the super-
ority of spiritual over temporal rulers and on the primacy of the
Apostolic See it contains the elements of the theory of universal
papal supremacy. In its emphasis on a “higher law” supreme over
all governments it has its place in the tradition leading up to Coke’s
doctrine of judicial supremacy. In its insistence that men insofar
as they are free from sin can live by the law alone and need no gov-
ernment, it anticipates the Christian communism of the more ad-
vanced Reformation Sects and modern doctrines of philosophic anar-
chism. The one outstanding current of thought of which absolutely
no trace is present is that which was to prove ultimately the most
fruitful of all — the thought, namely, that the community can or-
ganize itself for the accomplishment of its common purposes by
developing institutions for pooling the ideas and harmonizing the
ends of its members.
It seems a futile question to ask which of these various strains of
Pare was dominant in the Policraticus or to seek some way of
harmonizing their divergent tendencies. The very point for empha-
sis is that their diversities are the product of the distinctness which
was to be given them by centuries of subsequent controversy. They
were able to live together side by side in the Policraiicus simply
because they were not conceived with modern distinctness. Early
thought, Maitland has somewhere said, is confused thought. “‘Sim-
plicity is the outcome of technical subtlety, it is the goal, not the
starting point. As we go backward, the familiar outlines become
blurred; the ideas become fluid, and instead of the simple we find
the indefinite.” ! It is from this point of view that we must read the
Policraticus. We must not ask exactly where John of Salisbury
would have drawn the line between princely power and priestly
supremacy; or between royal discretion and the “‘higher law.” The
“ point is that he draws no clear line. Every important idea is deeply
tinged with much of what we conceive to be its opposite; and it
1 Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 9.
Kingship an the Policraticus of John of Salisbury 337
carried this tinge with it into its later history. The significance of
the Policraticus for students of the political ideas of after times
consists precisely in the fact that it discloses the more or less con-
fused mass of contradictory ideas in which they were originally em-
bedded, and which served to limit and correct them.
Harvarp UNIVERSITY.
NOTES
RELATIONS OF THE INQUISITION TO PETER OF ABANO
AND CECCO D’ASCOLI
THE purpose of this note is to call attention to some additional evidence
bearing upon the relations of the Inquisition in the early fourteenth century
to the famous philosopher, astronomer, and medical authority, Peter of
Abano, and the poet and astrologer, Cecco d’Ascoli — evidence unnoted
in the treatment of this point in my History of Magic and Experimental
Science.
Sante Ferrari ! has noted an important passage embedded in the 48th
Differentia of the Conciliator in which Peter writes: “And so it is evident
that the Jacobites labored under a misapprehension, in persecuting me on
the ground that I held that the intellectual soul was educed from the po-
tency of matter, with fifty-four other errors ascribed to me, from whose
hands by the grace of God and an apostolic mandate I have laudably
escaped.” * Ferrari seems justified in identifying these ‘Jacobites’ with
the Dominicans who occupied the convent of St James in Paris, and they
are apparently the same as the ‘mischief-makers’ to whom Peter refers
1 Sante Ferrari, I tempi, la vita, le dottrine di Pietro d Abano, published in Atti della R.
Universita di Genova (pubbl. per decreto ed a spese del municipio di Genova), XIV (1900),
xvi + 490 pp., Genoa, Tipog. R. Istituto Sordomuti.
This first work was concerned chiefly with Peter’s life and doctrine, and the relation of the
latter to the learning of his times, on the basis of printed materials. It was supplemented by
the following study, in which Ferrari gave more attention to MSS of Abano’s works, limiting
himself, however, to those in Italian and Parisian libraries. But of these he notes a number
which are not included in my “Bibliography of Abano’s Writings” History of Magic and Ex-
perimental Science, II (1923), 917-26.
Sante Ferrari, Per la biografia e per gli scrittt di Pietro d’ Abano (Note ed aggiunte al volume
I tempi, la vita, le dottrine di Pietro d Abano), published in Memorie della R. Accademia dei
Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche, e Filologiche, Serie Quinta, XV, vii (1918),
629-727.
I much regret not having been able to refer to these elaborate studies in my chapter on
Peter of Abano, but owing to their publication m periodicals they are very hard to come at,
even the largest libraries not cataloguing them under their author's name. I shall refer to
them henceforth as Ferrari (1900), and Ferrari (1918).
Sante Ferrari published another paper, entitled, “‘Intorno ai libri astronomici di Pietro
d’Abano,”’ Rivista Ligure di scienze, lettere ed arti, Genova, 1916. I have not seen it but presume
that it is largely identical with the section, “I libri astronomici,”’ in Ferrari (1918), pp. 692-715.
2 “Et ideo apparet hic erroneus intellectus Jacobitarum me persequentium tamquam
posuerim animam intellectiuam de potentia educi materiae cum aliis mihi 54 ascriptis erroribus,
a quorum manibus gratia dei et apostolica mediante laudabiliter euasi.”
338
Notes 339
in the 9th Differentia of the Conciliator.1 The passage also helps to explain
Michael Savonarola’s account of Peter’s trouble with the Dominicans of
Paris, and his assertion that Peter induced the king and university to call
a council of doctors of theology, whom he convinced by forty-five argu-
ments (45 instead of 54?) that the Dominicans were the heretics and not he.
In going on to assert, however, that, as a result, the Dominicans were
driven from Paris as heretics and exiles for thirty-two years, Michael
Savonarola has probably confused this affair with the later disputes at
Paris concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin and the Doc-
trines of the Dominican, Jean de Monzon, in 1884 and 1387, as a result of
which the University of Paris deprived the Dominicans of their chair of
theology and of academic degrees for a space of seventeen years.?
Sertorio Orsato, in his Historia di Padova (1678), quoted a document
of May 22, 1807, now lost, in which the Commune of Padua, in receiving
under its protection the abbey of Praglia, referred the matter to * sapientes
electi ex uigore reformationis factae in fauorem Petri de Albano tempore Domini
Ponzini de Pizenardis olim potestatis Paduae.”” This has been taken by
Ferrari * and others to imply that by a previous decree the Commune had
taken Peter under its protection against the Inquisition, but the words
“ex uigore reformationis factae in fauorem Petri de Albano” suggest rather
that the authorities had found it necessary to make some change in the
University Statutes (reformatio is the word regularly used for this), pre-
sumably in connection with some special arrangement with Peter of Abano
or with an offer of unusually high salary in order to lure him away from
Paris.
Biscaro, however, in his recent study of the activities of the Inquisition
in Lombardy from 1292 to 1318, based upon manuscripts in the Vatican
Archives, notes that in 1312 the accounts of the inquisitor, Friar Rogerius
de Petriolo, record the expenditure of a small sum on wine at a consultation
held by the inquisitor of Padua with the doctors and learned men concern-
ing the affair or fate of Master P. de Albano, by whom Peter of Abano is
1 Indeed, in the edition of the Conciliator (Venetiis mandato et expensis nobilis uiri domini
Luceantonii de Giunta Florentini: Anno domini. 1522. die.17. Februarii.) which I consulted
to verify Ferrari’s quotation the words “differentia 9,” occur between “ materiae”’ and “cum,”
so that the translation would run, “... on the ground that I held in my ninth chapter that
the intellectual soul was educed from the potency of matter.
* See Histoire Littéraire de la France, XXIV, 241 and 263.
* Ferrari (1900), pp. 117 ff.
‘ Gerolamo Biscaro, “Inquisitori ed eretici lombardi, 1292-1818,” in Miscellanea di
Storia Italiana, third series, XIX (1921), 446-858. This particular passage is given at p. 642
from fol. 148 of Archivio Vaticano, Reg. Ellect. N. 133, and reads: “(xi) Item eodem mense
quum habitum fuit consilium per inquisitorem paduanum cum doctoribus et sapientibus de
facto magistri P. de Albano, in vino — 4s.”
340 Notes
presumably meant. Whether this conference led to the taking of any action,
we are not informed, but it seems to show that the Inquisition still had its
eye on Peter after he left Paris and came to Padua.
Biscaro’s study further serves to correct the following statement which
I made upon the basis of previous works upon the Inquisition: “If Peter’s
property were confiscated as that of a heretic, it would naturally be con-
fiscated by the Commune of Padua, the same secular power to which he
would be handed over for execution in case he were condemned to the
stake.” But from the financial records of receipts and expenditures kept
by several inquisitors in Lombardy at this time and preserved in the Vatican
Archives, it appears that the Holy Office took a large part, if not all, of the
deceased person’s effects, and also frequently imposed severe fines upon
heretics during their lifetime. Even so, the inquisitors often failed to pay
their way.
The persecution of Peter of Abano and the execution of Cecco d’Ascoli
have often been ascribed to the jealousy of rival physicians or officious
colleagues or the machinations of personal enemies. That there may have
been some truth in such reports is seen from the case of one Angelo da
Arezzo, noted in Biscaro’s monograph.! Of this very Angelo, Cecco says
in his de Principiis (ed. P. G. Boffito, 1903), p. 86, ““Quando somniauit
comedere ficus, semper inerit sibt angustia.” Angelo was professor of phil-
osophy at Bologna at a salary of 100 lire,? and was condemned for heresy
and fined 250 lire by the inquisitor, Nicolaus da Ripatransonis, in 1811.
But Angelo thereupon brought accusation of calumny against two men, one
of whom was Master Giuliano dei Preverti, doctor of medicine and astrology,
and in March of the following year Giuliano was fined $50 lire and the
other calumniator 125 lire by the new inquisitor, Fra Roger, while Angelo
was declared innocent. When Roger made his financial report, the culprits
had thus far been able to pay only 175 and 85 lire respectively of their
fines, while a third master, Bettino da Castello, who also had been fined
125 lire, was so poor that he could only turn over some books, which Roger
still had on his hands. Despite this very discreditable incident in his early
career, Giuliano, the aforesaid doctor of medicine and astrology, appears
to have become a university lecturer from 1321 to 1842.8
Peter of Abano was often mentioned with high praise in citations, lists
of physicians, and other contexts by writers of the two following centuries,
either scientific or medical or historical, and usually without reference to
a trial or death at the hands of the Inquisition or the least hint of any
stigma resting upon his name. There are, of course, exceptions, such as the
1 Biscaro (1921), pp. 498, 494.
2 C. Ghirardacci, Historia de Bologna, II (1657), 56.
3 F. Cavazza, Le scuole dell’ antico Studio di Bologna, Milan, 1896, p. 157.
Notes 341
accounts by Thomas of Strassburg and Michael Savonarola which I have
already noted in my book, but I have in mind now the general run of
passages that I have seen since. These eulogistic allusions of later writers
are, it is true, usually brief and rather general. Even so, some suggestion
of so sensational a fact as death for heresy or while under trial or awaiting
trial for heresy might be looked for in them, had this been the case. The
following passage from Coluccio Salutati’s Tractatus de Nobilitate Legum et
Medicine, composed in 1899,! is perhaps a fair example of the general run
of such references, although it is fuller than many of them. In his ninth
chapter, after listing various other famous Italian physicians of the past
century or so, — Thaddeus Florentinus, Turisianus, also of Florence, Dino
del Garbo and his son Tommaso,? Gentile da Foligno, Christofanus de
Honestis of Bologna, — Salutati continues, “But to be placed above all I
firmly believe is Peter of Abano of Padua who published in medicine a book
of the greatest divinity which is called Conciliator, also expounded the
Problems of the Philosopher, a universal genius indeed rather than a medi-
cal man, and a true philosopher, than whom you hardly have any more
illustrious among men of medicine.” ®
But to this general failure of subsequent writers who cite Peter of Abano
to refer to his trial for heresy I have run across one further exception in
the case of the work of John Michael Albert of Carrara, de Constitutione
Mundi. This John was born in 1438, as he himself tells us, and lived to
1490. He wrote the aforesaid work for Boniface, the marquis of Mont-
ferrat. It appears never to have been printed and to be little known; I have
read it in a manuscript at Florence.‘ After stating that Peter of Abano
ascribed Noah’s flood to a conjunction of the planets in the Conciliator,
John Michael Albert adds that he was accused of heresy on this account
before (or perhaps simply ‘in the time of’) Pope John XXII, and defended
his position before a council of ecclesiastics, contending also that the con-
1 T have read Salutati’s work in two manuscripts in the Laurentian Library at Florence,
both of the fifteenth century: Laurent. Plut. 78, cod. 11 and Strozat, MS. 96. It also was
printed in Venice, 1542, but this edition is rare; the British Museum, for example, does not
have a copy of it, although there is one in Florence which I consulted.
2 Tommaso, who died in 1870, was Dino's son, of course, and not his father, as incorrectly
sacle in my History of Magic and Experimental Science, I, 967, note 1.
. sed omnibus anteponendum ferme censeo Petrum de Hebeno Paduanum qui
maxime diuinitatis librum qui Conciliator dicitur edidit in medicina quoque problemata philos-
ophi declarauit, uirum quidem uniuersalem plusquam medicum uereque philosophum quo
forte non habetis inter medicos clariorem.”’
4 Ashburnham MS. 198, fol. Ir: ‘Ioannis Michaelis Alberti Carariensis excellentissimi
philosophi ad praestantissimum principem Bonifacium Marchoinem montis ferrati opus
nclytum de constitutione mundi feliciter incipit.”
Apostolo Zeno, Dissertaztont Vossiane (Venezia, 1752), II, 31, mentioned a fifteenth-cen-
tury MS. of our work in the library of Turin.
342 Notes
fusion of tongues was under the empire of certain stars, although he granted
that the amount of water in the flood might have exceeded that which the
influence of the conjunction and the forces of nature would account for.!
John does not say whether Peter’s defense was acceptable to the ecclesi-
astical assembly or no,? but his dating it under John XXII is an interesting
confirmation, though perhaps not worth much, of the evidence that Peter
dedicated his de Venenis to John XXII and so lived beyond 1815 or 1816,
the dates commonly given for Peter’s death.
This same John Michael Albert, as it happens, also has a brief allusion
to the heresy and condemnation of Cecco d’Ascoli which seems not to have
been hitherto noted and which offers a new specific suggestion, not made
by Villani and the manuscript copies of the inquisitorial sentence or rela-
tions of Cecco’s death,? namely: that the feature in Cecco’s astrological
teaching and writing which was regarded as heretical was his impugning
the miraculous character of the Virgin birth. The passage reads: “‘Cecco
d’Ascoli reached such a point of insanity that he said that it was natural
that a virgin (or, the Virgin) conceive, for which error he was condemned
to be burned. And, indeed, unless he has changed his opinion for the better,
he now sighs in hell.” But we do not find such an opinion supported m
the works of Cecco as they have reached us. Furthermore, John Michael
Albert writes considerably more than a century after the event; his utter-
1 Ashburnham 198, fol. 121v: “Et conciliator quidem propter hoc apud Joannem XXII
maximum presulem heresis accusatus est quia ex stellarum potestate id futurum procognosci
non posset quod nulli nature hoc est debito uniuersi ordine repugnaret ipse in ecclesiasticorum
concilium accersitus disputauit non modo diluuium sed et linguarum diuisionem que similiter
omnem nature ordinem transcendit sub quorundam astrorum imperio contigisse asserens
naturale esse ut diluuium contigeret, augmentum tamen eius tam immensum nature uires
excessisse quum et si tota terre ipsius moles resolueretur fieretque inde aqua uix posset spatium
illud ingens aque mediique aeris occupare quod tamen esse non uerum constat cum sit decies
tanta.”
2 He himself, however, goes on to give (at fol. 12%v) four causes of floods, all of which
are astrological.
3 In this connection I may add to the MSS noted at II, 951, 952, of my History of Magic
and Experimental Science, a notice of two MSS given by Jacopo Morelli, I codicit manoscrittt
volgart della Libreria Nantiana, Venezia, 1776.
Nantano cod. volg. 114, 17th century: I. Vita e morte di Cecco d’Ascoli, Inciyit “‘la morte
di Cecco d’Ascoli ...” II. Sentenza di Frate Accursio di Firenze dell’ Ordine de’ Minori
contro Cecco d’Ascoli, pronunziata in Firenze a’ xv settembre MCCCXXVII. Incipit ‘Noi
frate Accursio...”’ The first item consists chiefly of stories of feats of magic ascribed to
Cecco. A more correct text of the second item or inquisitorial sentence was contained in Na-
niano cod. volg. 115, saec. xvi.
These MSS I have not seen, and I do not know where they are at present to be found.
* Florence MS. Ashburnham 198, fol. $8v: ‘‘Franciscus Esculanus in tantem insaniam
creuit ut dixerit naturale fuisse ut uirgo conciperet propter quem errorem damnatus est ut
igne cremaretur. Et profecto nisi sententiam mutarit in melius nunc et in herebo suspirat.”
Notes 343
ance is very brief, though specific enough; and he gives no authority for
his assertion. It may be added that John Michael Albert was very favor-
ab:y inclined to astrology in the broad sense himself, although he occasion-
ally maintains his orthodoxy by such passages as that quoted concerning
Cecco. I hope to treat of the contents of his work and its relation to those
of Ristoro d’Arezzo and Paul of Venice in another paper.’ |
Lynn THORNDIKE,
Columbia University.
THE UNCIAL FRAGMENT OF THE LETTERS OF THE
YOUNGER PLINY
THE uncial fragment of the Letters of the Younger Pliny — one of the many
treasures of the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York— contains at
the top of one of the pages a note in French, transliterated by Dr Lowe
and myself,? with an improvement by M. Omont.? The note reads:
A tous ceulz qui ces presentes lettres verront et orront Jehan de Suavenieres
garde du scel de la provoste de Meaulx & Francois Belon clerc Juré de par le Roy
nostre sire a ce faire, salut. Sachient tuit que par.
Assuming, with Dr Lowe’s agreement, that the note was added in the
fifteenth century, I used it as evidence that the manuscript, written, we
thought, most probably in Italy, was in France at least in the latter part
of the Middle Ages, and was preserved not far from Paris. I tried to
show that it had once formed part of the ancient manuscript used by Aldus
Manutius in his epoch-making edition of the Letters in 1508. At least it is
clear that like Aldus’s codex, which was brought down to him from Paris
by the Venetian ambassador, it was reposing somewhere near Paris before
1508. We did not attempt an exact dating of the note, being satisfied that
the script was surely earlier and not later than 1508 — the main point
with which I was concerned. On that matter any possible doubt is dispelled
by information kindly sent me in a recent letter from M. Omont. He states
that his friend, H. Stein, calls his attention to two documents in the Royal
Belgian Archives at Brussels (Chartes de Brabant et de [imbourg, Nos 5800,
5819) which are the work of “Jean de Sauvéniéres, garde du sceau de la
prévété de Meaux,” and that they are dated September 19, and November
4, 1881. Whether the note in the Morgan fragment was written before or
after that year I have no means of telling. That it was done before the
Aldine Edition appeared, I think everybody will concede.
E. K. Ranp.
1 To appear soon in The Romanic Renew.
2 A Sixth Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger, Carnegie Institution of
Washington, 1922, p. 21. 3 Bibliotheque de (' Ecole des Chartes, 1922, p. 474.
344 Notes
A MANUSCRIPT OF TOURS, No. 286
In tracing the history of abbreviations in mediaeval manuscripts we are
coming more and more clearly to suspect a continuity of practicefrom the
Roman Empire down into the early Middle Ages. Nobody has done more
to illuminate this dark period than Mr Lindsay who, in his Notae Latinae
(Cambridge, England, 1915) and in an article in Classical Philology, XI
(1916), 270 ff., has brought into prominence several manuscripts most im-
portant as sources of ancient symbols of abbreviation. To this list one
significant addition should be made, I believe, namely, a manuscript of
Tours, No. 286, containing the de Musica of St Augustine. SPEcULUM will
publish before long an extended account of this manuscript and the systems
of ancient abbreviations which it contains. EKR
A WELSH BRANCH OF THE ARTHUR FAMILY-TREE
In the Welsh stories of Arthur, many of the Triads and the three published
Bruts we find the counterpart of Gawain referred to constantly as Gwalch-
mei ap Gwyar, “Gwalchmei [Gawain] the son of Gwyar.”’ In the French
romances, however, as well as in Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Latin
chroniclers, Gawain is the son of King Lot and Arthur’s sister, Anna. Who,
then, is Gwyar? The subject is complicated, as will be seen from an exami-
nation of the views expressed about the identity of Gwyar by various
Arthurian scholars.
In a note on Gwalchmei the late Professor Bruce wrote: “‘Gwalchmei’s
father in Kulhwch and Olwen is named Gwyar.”’! In an earlier article
Loth expressed the opinion that Gwyar is probably not Gwalchmei’s father
but his mother:
La version galloise de Gaufrei transforme Loth en Llew, fils deCynvarch ...
L’Auteur du Brut Tysilio, voulant concilier Gaufrei qui fait de Loth [Llew] le pére
de Walgainus [Gwalchmei], et la tradition galloise qui le qualifie de fils de Gwyar,
le donne bien comme beau-frére d’Arthur, mais ajoute et de Gwyar, mére de Gwalch-
mat l’empereur (ef oedd vrawd yngyfraith y Arthyr ac y Wyar, mam Walchmei
amherawdwr. My. Arch., p. 464).
1 J. D. Bruce, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance (Gittingen and Baltimore, 1923),
I, 41, note 8. The same name, it may be noted, is given Gwalchmei’s parent in the Peredur,
Gereint and Enid, The Dream of Rhonabwy, the Triads and the Bruts. For the appearances of
Gwalchmei ap Gwyar in these stories see the indexes to Sir John Rhys and Dr J. G. Evans,
The Text of the Mabtnogion and Other Welsh Tales from the Red Book of Hergest (Oxford, 1887),
and to J. Loth, Les Mabinogion (2d ed., Paris, 1913). San-Marte, too, assumes that Gwyar
is Gwalchmei’s father. See San-Marte (i.e., A. Schulz), Gottfried’s von Monmouth Historia
Regum Britanniae ... und Brut Tysilio (Halle, 1854), p. 380, note 7.
2 J. Loth, ‘‘Le roi Loth des Romans de la Table Ronde,” Revue Celtique, XVI (18965), 86.
Notes 345
Loth does not appear to take account of the fact, however, that in this
same version Llew [Loth] is said to be the husband of Arthur’s sister,
Anna,! although it would not, of course, be an unparalleled instance were
we to find Llew’s [Loth] wife given two different names in one version of
the Brut.?
Sir John Rhfs takes the feminine sex of Gwyar for granted and suggests
that in an early version of the story there was an incestuous union between
Arthur and his sister, Gwyar, of which Mordred was one offspring and
Gawain possibly another.*? He also assumes that Gwyar was the wife of
King Llew [Loth]‘ and suggests that the etymology of the name Gwyar,
which seems to mean blood that has been shed, “places the bearer of it on
the level of the Irish Morrigu as a war-fury.” 5 Miss L. A. Paton in citing
this passage says of the name Gwyar, “But, if it belongs to Gwalchmei’s
mother at all when put beside Geoffrey’s words it places its bearer on a
nearer level with the war-goddess Ana.®” This is-an interesting suggestion.
In the Welsh stories of Arthur mentioned above (p.844) and in the
Triads no information whatever is to be obtained about Gwyar; for there
is never any indication as to which parent is meant in the appearances of
**Gwalchmei ap Gwyar.”” In the numerous references to Gwalchmei in the
three published Bruts’ we find exactly the same situation witb the single
exception of the passage cited by Loth (see p. 344 supra). This passage in
full reads:
Ac o dyna ydaeth Arthyr hyt ynghaer Efroc y gynnal y lys erbyn nadolic. Ac
yna tost vy gan Arthyr weled yr eglwyssau wedy distryw or Saeson a lad y maibion
len. Ac y roes Arthyr y Aron ap Cynvarch Ysgottlont ac y Elw ap Cynvarch
jiarllaeth Lindessi cans ef oed vrawd yngyfraith y Arthyr ac y Wyar mam Walchmai
amherawdr. Ac y Yrien ap Cynvarch y roded Reged.—‘ And thenceforth Arthur
came to the city of York to hold court about Christmas time. And there it was
difficult for Arthur to see the churches destroyed by the Saxons and the young clerics
1 Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales (2d ed., Denbigh, 1870), p. 464, right-hand column.
2 For example, in the Serglige Conculaind (Stck-Bed of Cuchulain), ed. E. Windisch, Irische
Texte, I (Leipzig, 1880), 197-234, where two versions have been pieced together, Cuchulain’s
wife is called Ethne Inguba at the beginning of the story and Emer further on.
3 J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurtan Legend (Oxford, 1891), p. 21.
4 Ibid., pp. 227-28. ee |
5 Ibid., p. 169. a ey
6 L. A. Paton, Studies in the Fairy Mythology of Arthurian Romance, Radcliffe College
Monograph No. 18 (Boston, 1903), p. 14), Miss Paton gives in a note a reference to the pas-
sage in which San-Marte refers to Gwyar as Gwalchmei’s. ‘father: ,
7 Ystorya Brenhined y Brytanyeit, ed. J. Rhys and J. G. Evans, The Tert’ of the Bruts
from the Red Book of Hergest (Oxford, 1890) (this will be hereafter referred to as Red-Book
Brut), pp. 40-256; Brut Tysilio in the Myvyrian Archatology of Wales (2d ed., Denbigh, S70),
pp. 484-75; Brut G. ab Arthur, thid., pp. 476-554.
346 Notes
killed. And Arthur gave to Aron ap Cynvarch Scotland and to Elw ap Cynvarch
the earldom of Lindsey, for he was brother-in-law to Arthur and to Gwyar, the
mother of Gwalchmei the emperor, and to Urien ap Cynvarch he gave Reged.’ !
This, then, is all that we can learn about Gwyar, simply that she was “the
mother of Gwalchmei the emperor.”
“‘Gwalchmei ap Liew”’ is referred to in the Bruts;? and in each one of
the versions it is directly stated that Anna is Llew’s [Loth’s] wife. There is
never any attempt by the Welsh authors to reconcile or to explain the two
Gwalchmei’s; but it is evident that Gwaichmei ap Llew follows the tradition
of Geoffrey of Monmouth, while Gwalchmei ap Gwyar of the Brut Tysilio
must come from native sources.
Moreover, Gwyar is not the only character unknown to Geoffrey of
Monmouth. That Llew [Loth], Urien [Urianus], and Arawn [Auguselus]
were all sons of a certain “Cynvarch” is emphasized in all three of the
Bruts.4 Yet this genealogy of Cynvarch is unknown to Geoffrey. Howel
[Hoelus], who, according to Geoffrey, is the son of Arthur’s sister and
Dubricius, King of Armorica, is in the Welsh Bruts always “‘Howel ap
Emyr Llydaw.” > However closely the authors of the Welsh Bruts may
have followed Geoffrey of Monmouth for their histories, it is certain from
these genealogies that they were also making use of independent Celtic
tradition.
1 Brut Tysilio, pp. 463-64. -
2 Red-Book Brut, p. 196; Brut Tysilto, p. 464, left-hand column; Brut G. ab Arthur, p. 535,
left-hand column.
3 Red-Book Brut, pp. 180, 181; Brut Tysilio, p. 461, right-hand column; Brut G. ab Arthur,
p. 529, right-hand column.
* Red-Book Brut, p. 194; Brut Tysilio, pp. 468, 464; Brut G. ab Arthur, p. 534, left-hand
column.
5 Geoffrey of Monmouth, Htstoria Regum Britanniae, ix, 2; Bruts, passim.
EvVANGELIA H. WALLER,
Radcliffe College.
REVIEWS
History of Mediaeval Philosophy, by Maurice de Wulf, translated by Ernest C. Messinger.
Vol. I, ‘From the Beginnings to Albert the Great.” Pp. xvi, 416. Longmans, Green
and Company.
Tuat students of philosophy will welcome with open arms this new volume
of Professor de Wulf goes without saying. It will receive an especially
warm reception in the United States, where so little is known of mediaeval
philosophy and what is known is too often a curious compound of preju-
dices, half-truths, and errors. During the last fifty years European scholars
have been working the rich deposit of the philosophical theories of the
Middle Ages with truly amazing results. One has only to mention the
Bibliotheca of Ehrle, the Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittel-
alters of Baeumker, the critical publications of the Franciscans of Quarrachi,
>
the Philosophes Belges of Louvain, the writings of Grabbmann, Pelzer, and :
a host of other admitted authorities, to know how extensive and serious has
been the work of reconstructing the genuine philosophy of the Middle Ages.
Unfortunately, most of what has been accomplished on the Continent has
remained a sealed book to the great body of American readers, especially
to students of philosophy who have failed, until recently, to appreciate the
manifold possibilities for contemporary philosophy contained in Scholastic
thought. The History of Mediaeval Philosophy of Professor de Wulf sup-
plies the needed link with the past. Henceforth it cannot but be looked
upon as an unforgivable fault for any thinker to write in any but an exact -
way about the teachings or opinions of the Scholastic philosophers. More-
over, this volume should help to correct some of the curiously false impres-
sions current in certain circles both regarding the nature and extent of the
philosophical activity of the Schoolmen.
The general impression which one takes away from the reading of this
book is of amazement at the fertility of these old philosophers and at the
almost perfect liberty which they enjoyed in the expression of their views.
If there ever existed an institution where academische Freiheit was a reality,
it was the University of Paris in the thirteenth century. Here Thomist
warred with Scotist, Aristotelian with Platonist, philosopher with theolo-
gian, and scientist with both of them, to produce an intellectual atmosphere
vibrating with life and which extended its influence into every corner of the
Western world, and into every aspect of mediaeval living and thinking.
Professor de Wulf in this new edition — it is really a new work, not a
new edition — has not changed materially the method of presentation
which he employed in the first edition which appeared almost twenty-five
$47
348 Reviews
years ago. Undoubtedly many prefer to see a book of this type ordered in
the fashion which the present volume follows. Its reference value certainly
is greatly increased by the division of subject-matter into logical sections,
clearly marked off and easy to be found. To others, however, the formal
textbook appearance will be a bit disconcerting since they much prefer to
have subject-matter handled somewhat in the manner which Professor
Gilson adopted in La Philosophie au Moyen Age.
_ There is one feature of the present work beyond all compare — the
| bibliographies. Exact, scientific, practically complete, they demonstrate
the wide acquaintance with every aspect of mediaeval philosophy which
de Wulf possesses. Particularly valuable is his list of sources (pp. 31-43)
- which is intended to supplement and complete the list mentioned by Baum-
gartner in the last edition of Uberweg’s Grundriss der Geschichte der Philos-
ophie. Each chapter of the History of Mediaeval Philosophy, too, is followed
by an extensive, well-chosen bibliography. The present reviewer very
carefully went over every list of references and can testify that, as far as
he is aware, no important work in any language seems to have escaped the
industrious search of Professor de Wulf.
The translation at times is bad and in general lacks both clarity and
precision, to say nothing of distinction. Such phrases as “to put in dis-
grace” (p. 87) and “when he became a Master, he officially accomplished
the scholastic acts” (p. 252), to cite only two examples at random, are
inexpressibly poor. The faults of translation are probably due to the haste
with which the work was pushed, a fact which is evidenced as well by the
great number of typographical errors. One may excuse a faulty translation;
there is no possible excuse for slovenly proof-reading.
I find myself in perfect agreement with Professor de Wulf on the two
main theses of his book. In the first place, he contends that there existed in
the Middle Ages systems of philosophy in the technical sense of the term.
Secondly, the system known as Scholasticism was the chief one and repre-
sents a common fund of principles accepted by the great majority of West-
ern thinkers, despite the fact that they differed from one another in many,
and often important details. In no other way can we explain the economic,
political, artistic, and religious tendencies, all of which exhibit in a surprising
way the notes of unity and universality, of those centuries. Philosophy was
recognized quite universally as the highest pursuit of the human mind and,
despite the exaggerations to which over-emphasis on metaphysical specula-
tion often led, the net result of the almost feverish philosophical and theo-
logical activity of the Scholastics was to develop an outstanding civilization.
The Scholastic synthesis was not a mere working over or harmonizing of
-Platonism with Aristotelianism; it represents an effort to create, in a series
of solutions dependent on one another and linked up with a few master
Reviews 349
ideas, an answer to all the great problems of philosophy. As de Wulf points .
out, “there are three doctrines the unifying function of which are above
all easily recognized, and which are found everywhere, as the pointed arch |
is ground in all the corners of a Gothic cathedral. These doctrines are: |
intellectualism, the value of personality, and the idea of God”’ (p. 31 1).
The presence or absence of these doctrines makes a philosophy Scho-
lastic and by the use of this criterion de Wulf divides the different systems
and writers into their several groups. Thus he classes Scotus Eriugena |
amongst the non-Scholastics. Some historians might object to this designa-
tion since Scotus is generally looked upon as the first of the Scholastics.
There can be no question of the fact that in many of his teachings he is
Scholastic and that in point of time he antedates the Scholastic system-
makers. He has also deeply influenced many Scholastics, particularly Irish
thinkers, the history of whose pantheistic leanings yet remains to be written.
The monism of the de Diuisione Naturae, however, is so prominent a |
characteristic of the thought of Scotus and so essential to an understanding |
of his metaphysics and psychology that it seems impossible, because of these
tendencies, to bring him under the classification “Scholastic,” the principles
of which were fundamentally dualistic and realistic. |
The first portion of the History of Mediaeval Philosophy which treats of |
philosophy in the ninth and tenth centuries does not compare in interest |
with the later sections; in fact it is the weakest part of the book. Little, of |
course, is known about that early period. What is presented is given in so
concise a fashion that its true significance cannot be grasped and its influ-
ence on subsequent thought is not fully pointed out. Neither does Pro-
fessor de Wulf give us a complete picture of the utter ruin of everything
intellectual which preceded the birth of Scholasticism. He is much more
fortunate when later on he describes the civilization of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries which ushered in and accompanied the construction
of the philosophical syntheses of Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Thomas
Aquinas, and Duns Scotus. The new Latin translations, the foundation of
the Universities, the rise of the mendicant orders, are finely evaluated,
although their relations to the reigning Scholasticism are not brought out
as clearly as we might desire.. One would have expected more than a chap-
ter (chap. viii) to have been devoted to Byzantine and Arabian philoso-
phy, although it must be admitted that de Wulf is careful at all times to
trace in each philosopher he studies the influence of such thinkers as Avi-
cenna and Averrhoes.
A considerable amount of attention is given to the problem of universals,
which was the central one of Scholastic philosophy, as it is and always will
be of every philosophy. De Wulf is careful to note that despite the fact
that this problem played so prominent a role in early Scholasticism, it
350 Reviews
must not be regarded as the only problem which the Scholastics attacked,
as some writers continue to assert. It is true that in the twelfth century
Scholastics bestowed upon it an exaggerated importance, so much so that
John of Salisbury was led to utter his famous complaint that the problem
of universals was one “in qua laborans mundus iam senuit, in qua plus
temporis consumptum est quam in acquirendo et regendo orbis imperio con-
sumpserit Caesarea domus.”
The attempt to solve the problem, however, made necessary a workable
logic and an acceptable metaphysics, to both of which tasks the philosophy
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries devoted its efforts and both of which
it succeeded in achieving.
It is scarcely necessary to state that on several points the conclusions
which de Wulf reaches are open to debate. This is particularly true with
reference to his assigning definite positions and doctrines to certain philoso-
phers. For example, the estimate of Abelard made by Professor Gilson
differs in many ways from that of de Wulf. Likewise, one might prefer
Gilson’s picture of St Bonaventure to the one drawn by de Wulf, although
both agree in this, that Bonaventure was a true philosopher and not merely
a mystic as he is so often represented to have been.
It would be difficult to exaggerate the merits of the History of Mediaeval
Philosophy. It is now regarded as a standard work on the period, and is
likely to remain so for a long time. Professor de Wulf merits well of all
lovers of mediaeva! philosophy, so well that it will be next to impossible to
repay in any adequate way the debt of gratitude which the learned world
owes this famous son of Harvard and Louvain.
The Key to the Study of St Thomas, from the Italian of Msgr Francesco Olgiati, trans. by John
S. Zybura. St Louis, Mo. and London: B. Herder, 1925. Pp. viii, 176. $1.25.
TuH1S monograph in its Italian form is entitled L’ Anima di San Tommaso
and is the work of Francesco Olgiati, Professor of Philosophy at the Uni-
versity of Milan. The thesis is that the philosophy of Being underlies the
Thomist system and offers the only sound explanation of the positions
successively taken by St Thomas on the problems of logic, psychology,
ethics, and natural theology. That the Thomist philosophy is fundamentally
ontological is beyond all controversy; that one has grasped the full import
of tbis philosophy when he understands its ontological base is stretching
a point, admirable in itself, too far. At any rate, the essay only pretends to
be a ‘key.’ Many will find it a rather ornate key, not the soundly analytical
and discerning critique one has the right to look forward to, judging the
contents of the book by its title.
James H. Ryan,
The Catholic University of America.
Reviews 351
SoMERSET BATEMAN, Stmon de Montfort, His Life and Work. Birmingham: Cornish Brothers,
1923. Pp. 292. 7/6.
AN interesting account of the life of Simon de Montfort, but one that
throws no new light upon the activities of the great earl. Mr Bateman is
an ardent admirer of Simon and has read widely in chronicles and modern
books that deal directly or indirectly with his hero. He has an eye for the
picturesque, and has woven into his narrative many quaint, though some-
times irrelevant, incidents from the chronicles. There is, however, a lack
of discrimination in the use of authorities, and no attempt has been made
to solve any of the serious problems of the period of baronial rule. Thus,
while the book is pleasant reading, it fails to meet the need of an adequate
biography in English of Simon de Montfort.
JAMES F’. WILLARD,
University of Colorado.
G. R. Ga.sraita, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, 1216 to 1360. Manchester: Uni-
versity Press, 1925. Pp. xvi, 286.
THE evidence that St Dominic has been justly called a great organizer lies
in the book under review. Though the broad outlines and a few of the de-
tails of the organization of the Dominican Order during its early days have
been known, it has remained for Mrs Galbraith to fill in the picture. The
book is a model of clearness of arrangement and of sound learning. The
chapter headings indicate its scope: ‘The Ancestry of the Dominican Con-
stitutions’; ‘The Chapters’; ‘The Officers’; ‘Origin and Development.’ Of
the several appendices the most valuable contains the constitutiones of
1358-1363.
The outstanding characteristics of the organization set forth in the
constitutiones left by St Dominic and modified in later years are its central-
ization and its representative basis. To these may be added the ease of
revision. From the smallest convent to the master-general and the genera-
lissimum chapter there were noloose ends. What is more, the friars belonged
to the order as a whole and not to the houses in which they lived. Through-
out the organization the system of representation prevailed. Each con-
ventual chapter elected the prior of the convent and a representative to sit
in the provincial chapter. The provincial chapters, in which sat the con-
ventual priors as well as the representatives, elected the provincial priors
and the representatives to go to the general chapter. The latter made up
the general chapter for two successive years; during the third year this
chapter was composed of provincial priors alone. The alternation of rep-
resentative and official elements was a stroke of genius. The general chapter
was normally the final legislative and electoral body in the Order. Only
the generalissimum chapter had greater power and it met but twice within
352 Reriews
the period, in 1228 and 1236. Even in it the representative element held
the balance of strength.
The elasticity of the constitutiones was one of their great merits. St
Dominic, wise in this as in other matters, provided for change in the organ-
ization he framed. His followers, while keeping most of what he left them,
made revisions needed to preserve the democratic spirit of the Order and
to smooth out the rough places. To bring about a change three readings m
successive general chapters were required, but this did not block beneficial
legislation. Mrs Galbraith has shown, for example, how the chapters suc-
cessfully prevented the development of autocracy and how jealously they
guarded their power over the high officers.
The book is strictly a study of the Dominican constitution, and as such
will appeal primarily to those who are interested in mediaeval institutions.
To anyone so interested it will prove a mine of exact information.
James F. Wriivarp,
University of Colorado.
Mélanges d'histoire du moyen Gge offerts 4 M. Ferdinand Lot par ses amis 4 ses éléres. Paris:
H. Champion, 1925. Pp. xli, 740.
THE eminent scholar and teacher whose work at the Ecole des Hautes
Etudes and the Sorbonne is here commemorated represents a many-sided
scholarship which is all too rare in the mediaeval field. The one hundred
and nineteen mediaeval items of the annexed bibliography of M. Lot’s writ-
ings cover not only his chair of history, political, institutional, and economic,
with diplomatics and toponymy, but also a wide range of literary and
philological subjects, Celtic as well as Romance. Some are well-known
volumes like the Hugues Capet and the Lancelot, but most are special
articles. Inthe aggregate they constitute a very remarkable contnbution
to our knowledge of the Middle Ages, particularly the obscure and difficult
aspects of the period, and are distinguisbed by an exceptional critical faculty,
wide and exact learning, and fresh solutions of many tough problems — an
admirable ideal to set before the numerous students whom the author has
inspired and guided.
The forty-one studies here offered to M. Lot deal mainly, though not
exclusively, with the French Middle Ages. Besides many younger scholars,
the list of contributors includes such names as Bédier, Bémont, Chatelain,
Jeanroy, Lesne, Pirenne, Powicke, Prou, and Roques. Space forbids a com-
plete analysis, and, at the risk of appearing to slight several excellent local
studies, we must limit ourselves to a bare enumeration of the articles
possessing chief interest for American readers. On the side of history,
Bémont reéxamines the problem of the bull Laudaliliter, emphasizing the
importane of the three undisputed bulls of 1172; Miss Levett studies Eng-
—
Reviews 353
lish baronial councils; Arquilliére considers the origins of the Roman
theocracy; Jordan takes up the relations of Henry VI and Celestine III.
Topics of rural and agrarian history are treated by Bloch, Netzer, Perrin,
and Pirenne. Lesne writes on the internal organization of Corbie in the
ninth century. Spain in the same period is touched by Calmette and Bar-
rau-Dihigo. Byzantine relations are discussed by Iorga, Marinesco, and
Millet. Of the chroniclers there are studies on Gregory of Tours (Halphen),
Ingomar (Fawtier), William of Poitiers and William of Jumiéges (Marx),
and Lambert of Ardres (Ganshof). Mediaeval Latin is represented by
Chatelain’s edition of the verses on Lantfrid and Gorbon; Powicke’s paper
on Master Simon of Faversham (with new evidence on Siger de Brabant);
Miss Mackay’s sketch of the de Conscientia; and the reviewer’s note on
the Neapolitan grammarian, Walter of Ascoli. Contributions to vernacular
literature are: Bédier’s commentary on twenty passages of the Chanson de
Roland; Roques’s discussion of a line of Aucassin et Nicolette; Jeanroy’s new
edition and dating of a sirventes of 1230; Champion’s notice of the Livre des
trois Eages; Pauphilet’s examination of the prose Perceval; and Mme Lot’s
note on the unity of the prose Lancelot. On the Celtic side there is a paper
on Pharamond in Irish literature by Vendryes. The only archaeological
contribution is that of Deschamps on the early marble altars of the Midi.
Under palaeography should be noted Lauer’s monograph on the Bouhier
Psalter, and Mme Rojdestvensky’s notes on the origin of the so-called
Gothic hand, a memoir which contains interesting suggestions concerning
mediaeval scripioria.
CuHarLeEs H. Hasxgs,
Harvard University.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH
Joun Jay Parry, The Vita Merlini (University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature,
vol. X, no. 3), Urbana, 1925.
The Rev. Acton Griscom, The “Book of Basingwerk”” and MS. Cotton Cleopatra B.V.: A
Study of Early Welsh Manuscripts. Reprinted from Y Cymmrodor, vols. XX XV-XXXVI.
London, 1926.
Dr Parry and the University of Illinois Press have followed and confirmed
a good precedent. Many works important and even fundamental for the
study of mediaeval literature are accessible only with difficulty and in an
unreliable form simply because they are in Latin, and because now Mediae-
val Latin is felt to be nobody’s business. The presentation of an accurate
text, with a summary of established facts about it, a guide to the bibliog-
raphy, and an index of names in the text (which last, unfortunately, Dr
Parry fails to give) would be enough to rouse our gratitude — sometimes even
354 Reriews
the printing of one good MS., with no attempt at restoring the original
text. Many university presses and men are in a position thus to advance
learning by providing its tools.
Dr Parry has done much more than this minimum. He has for the first
time accurately printed the earliest and only complete MS. of the Vita
Merlini, with variants from the others, has provided a translation, sum-
marized opinion, and drawn his own conclusions as to authorship, date, and
sources, produced a genealogy of the MSS, and (continuing his own earlier-
published studies) made numerous highly valuable observations in his notes
and appendix, though in a style a trifle lacking in final distillation. It
might have been as well to punctuate the text and correct unquestionable
mistakes, rather than print quite so diplomatically, since as yet the poem
is hardly the centre of keen debate; but no doubt the editor erred on the
right side. The translation is rough and fluctuating, but nearly always
essentially accurate. Perhaps he is unduly forbearing in his treatment of
his careless and blundering predecessors, and would be justified in stating
his conclusion, that Geoffrey is the author, with more positiveness. The last
five lines, naming the author, may be spurious, for the second of them con-
tains two dubious quantities, observed by the editor and the reviewer no-
where else in the poem; but, to say nothing of other evidence, at any rate
the lines show that Geoffrey was believed to be the author soon after it
was written. The editor says but little concerning Geoffrey’s use of Latin
authors, for example, of Ovid’s mannerisms and mythology (e.g. vv. 157,
424; in two other places he does note Ovidian parallels); but he was natur-
ally more interested in Geoffrey’s relation to Celtic tradition, which he
shows was even closer than was formerly realized.
The Vita Merlini, especially in this edition, is of special interest in con-
nection with the belief, to which many scholars are less averse than for-
merly, that, whatever its scope, the liber uetustissimus alleged by Geoffrey
as the main source of his Historia was not wholly a myth. For this later
work he assuredly had a rich Celtic background. Even aside from the
Celtic parallels to this or that episode pointed out by Dr Parry and his
predecessors, the interests and predilections, the peculiar tinge of the ro-
manticism, are undeniably Welsh. The wanton collecting of mirabilia for
their own sake is exactly in the Welsh taste. Telgesinus and Merlin recite
lists of fish, waters, and birds, with their strange properties (drawn from
Isidor, with possibly some use of Pliny), much as Arthur in the Historia
(ix, 7) tells of marvelous lakes. The Vita was well adapted to charm the
Welsh. Though Geoffrey does not retire here from the anti-Welsh posi-
tion so clear in the Historia, where he exalts the Bretons and belittles the
Welsh, he makes it less conspicuous.
Reviews 355
The Rev. Mr Griscom attacks the outworks of a much more difficult
problem, in collaboration with Canon Jones of the New York cathedral.
Literary and historical scholarship in America is so largely in the hands of
college professors that one welcomes to it with enthusiasm members of
another learned profession. A man with a knowledge of Welsh and of
paleography can render vast service where it is vastly needed, in the field
of Mediaeval Welsh and Latin.
Mr Griscom seems to have two main purposes: to show that previous
studies of the Welsh Bruts are confused and inaccurate; and that the two
texts mentioned in his title have been misrepresented and unduly over-
looked. The first point he abundantly proves (if proof is needed); fresh
examination of the MSS shows many cases of ignorance, misunderstanding,
and misstatement on the part of nearly everybody. No subject is more
pervaded with such stumbling-blocks for the later student; even Gross in
his Sources and Interature of English History makes several misstatements
in speaking of these works. Mr Griscom’s plea for a return to the MSS is
absolutely justified; we shall never get anywhere without reproduction,
study, and translation of the principal texts by competent Welsh scholars.
With the new centre for Welsh culture at Aberystwyth, and the racial
patriotism and comparative wealth (at least in some parts) of Wales, this
seems not too much to hope for.
The argument on the second point is less easy to grant and even to
follow. The authors hold with Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, the eminent
Egyptologist, that the so-called Brut Tysilio contains material independent
of Geoffrey and derived from or cognate with the liber uetustissimus Britan-
nict sermonts. Though Mr Griscom disclaims (p. 2) any attempt “to
estimate in any way the rightness or wrongness of Professor Petrie’s main
contention,” he devotes much space to defending it, especially with the
help of the Basingwerk and Cleopatra MSS. That these MSS are important
is true, and enforces the need of return to the MSS, but he adds little to
Petrie’s argument as to the Brut Tysilio, and the validity of some of his
arguments can easily be impugned.
To ascertain exactly what the views of Messrs Griscom and Jones are,
and to appraise their value except in the most general way, is made difficult
by their method. One finds ambiguity in their own and their quoted use of
such crucial terms as manuscript, text, version, work, “‘Walter’s book,”
Brut Tysilio, Brut y Brenhined. It would be well, with so confused a subject,
to define such terms at the outset, whether used of hypothetical works,
printed editions, or particular MS.-texts, and never use them in any other
sense. The reader would be aided all through by greater precision and
accuracy, and by a more orderly plan and clearer arrangement. One often
mentally asks, “What?” “Where?” “What is the bearing of this?”” A more
356 Reviews
extensive use of foot-notes and appendices would preserve irrelevant points
which the authors deem valuable, but which perplex the reader, who
cannot tell at once whether such points bear in some hidden way on the
main argument. Numerous misprints increase the troubles and uneasiness
of the reader, apparently the fault of the editor of Y Cymmrodor, who dis-
claims responsibility for anything else, but accepts responsibility for seeing
the volume through the press. Not only would any person on earth have
difficulty in following the authors’ thought, but one inevitably conceives
doubt of its validity. The subject is complicated in itself, the evidence 1s
difficult of access, and earlier writers on it have introduced great confusion;
the first requirement in a fresh treatment is to make clear just what the
writer is undertaking to do, just what bearing each succeeding point has
on it, and just what conclusions are reached.
These criticisms are made in no faultfinding spirit, but with the earnest
desire that we may profit to the utmost from Mr Griscom’s studies, for
which he has obviously unusual qualifications. We shall look forward with
great hopes to his further studies of Geoffrey and his edition of the Historia.
Our best present text being mainly a second-hand reproduction of a bad
text of 1587 (as Messrs Chambers and Griscom have shown), and very
much out of print at that, the latter promise is most welcome. An accu-
rate and readable reproduction of the best available MS., with variants
from others, will lay mediaeval scholars under a heavy debt, and will ac-
celerate the study of Geoffrey and his followers.
Encouraging signs of its present vitality are seen in a number of im-
portant shorter articles of the last twelvemonth. Mr Griscom’s own paper
in the last issue of SPECULUM gives new and significant information about
the texts and dedications of the Historia, and helps to confirm its date as
1186-88. Dr Parry has a highly capable observation on the date (1150) of
the Vita Merlint in Modern Philology, XXII, and an excellent and cautious
study of “‘Celtic Tradition and the Vita Merlini” in the Philclogical Quar-
terly, IV. Here he might have mentioned the Jewish parallel to Merlin’s
feats of prophecy cited by Kélbing and others (Altengl. Bibliothek, IV, evi).
There is also a certain interest in a similar story, though lacking the fulfil-
ment, told of Edward the Confessor in Higden’s Polychronicon (Rolls
Series), vii, 218, and cf. 166. Professor E. K. Chambers, in the Remew
of English Studies, I, argues ingeniously for revision or interpolation in
the text of the Historia about 1142, and for a reflection of contemporary
conditions in it, a stimulating and far-reaching idea. Mention should also
be made of the article on Nennius by Professor Felix Liebermann in the
Essays in Mediaeval History Presented to T. F. Tout (Manchester, England,
1925).
Reviews 357
The accumulation of background and detail now going on so vigorously
shows Geoffrey of Monmouth to the world more and more as, not a lone
figure at the beginning of things, but a widely-connected and brilliant per-
sonage in a great and flowering period of Latin culture. Of no less value
than increased knowledge of Geoffrey is increased knowledge of the Latin
culture of the twelfth century. Geoffrey was on the top of the wave without
knowing it. The English before the Norman Conquest had persisted in
writing in their own language. They had their own traditional culture,
modified and enriched by what they had learned from the south. Latin
was at best a foreign language to them; some of the more learned wrote in
it, but others infused what broad cultivation they had into what they
wrote in the vernacular. To their French and Italian contemporaries, on
the other hand, Latin was not foreign; it was their own national or racial
language, in a patois form for the affairs of daily life, more or less perfectly
in a careful conservative form for writing. If one wrote at all, one wrote
Latin. About the twelfth century came a change on both island and conti-
nent. Political changes degraded the English language, and gradual lin-
guistic changes were finally recognized as exalting French to a position of
independence. Late in the eleventh century, vernacular culture declined in
England; well on in the twelfth, the revolutionary idea was fully established
in France that literary work aiming at either utility or diversion for the
people or the aristocracy might use the vernacular. In Italy the exaltation
of the vernacular came a century or so later than in France. In the twelfth
century, therefore, in England and on the Continent, Latin was at its
height; it had come into supreme position in England, and had not lost
it in France and Italy. That language for a time was almost free from
literary rivals which had conveyed the main current of culture from the
days of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, and was to convey it to near the
end of the Middle Ages.
JOHN S. P. Tat Lock,
Harvard University.
The Riddles of Aldhelm: Text and Translation, by James Hall Pitman. Yale Studies in English,
LXVITI, New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1925. 81.
In his suggestive and important monograph, “The Possible Begetter of the
Old English Beowulf and Widsith” (Trans. Conn. Acad., XXV (1922), 281 ff.),
as well as in numerous other papers, Professor A. S. Cook has in recent
years shed much light upon, and gone far to awaken a somewhat overdue
interest in, the cultural life and Latin literature of England in the seventh
and eighth centuries. Now under his general editorship appears a most con-
venient and attractive edition of the Aenigmata of Aldhelm of Malmesbury,
text and translation, by Professor Pitman.
358 Renews
The Introduction discusses briefly the previous history of enigmatic
literature and likewise contains a short account of Aldhelm’s life and
literary activities; in the footnotes, however, the attention of the reader
is directed to the literature on these subjects. Bede’s esteem of Aldhelm is
mentioned; here the attention of the reader might conveniently have been
directed to Professor Charles Plummer’s edition of the Historia Ecclen-
astica, v, 18, and to ‘Aldhelm’ in the Index, ed. cit., II, 407. In the Intro-
duction, p. ii, Professor Pitman refers to Aldhelm’s Irish teacher, founder
of the school at Malmesbury, as ‘ Maildulf’; is this not a slip for ‘Maildubh,’
or ‘Mailduib’ (cf. Plummer’s Bede, II, 309, and especially 498, s.v. ‘Mail-
dufi urbs’)? Note might also have been made of the fact that Aldhelm’s
Aenigmaia is but one of a number of such collections by seventh- and eighth-
century Englishmen; see A. J. Wyatt, Old English Riddles, Boston: D. C.
Heath, 1912, Introduction, pp. xvii—xix.
In the Prologue or Praefatio, at times almost Miltonic in its grandeur,
the poet humbly yet impressively solicits divine inspiration for his poems
to follow, rejecting at the same time the Castalidas nimphas. One hundred
riddles, ranging in length from four to forty-six hexameter lines (average
length about ten lines) follow, in which the interest of the reader is con-
sistently maintained by the extraordinary diversity of the subjects treated:
the forces and manifestations of nature, animals, birds, and insects jostle
shoulders with homely inanimate objects, spiced here and there with an
admixture of the more exotic, such as an ostrich (No. 42), a unicorn (No. 60),
a palm tree (No. 91), and a tall light-house (No. 92). The concluding piece
(No. 100), ‘Creatura,’ is to all intents and purposes a beautiful cosmic ode
— cast in riddle form — to eternal, restless Nature, represented not only
by all space but by the tiniest of living creatures. It conveys a very unusual
sense of motion. The fundamental spirit of the whole is didactic, but
moral lore is tempered by a great love of nature’s kinds, keenness of obser-
vation, and a wide variety of subject. The translation, in more than
readable blank verse, adheres with fidelity to the original and commends
itself not only to students of ancient England and Old-English literature
(especially, of course, of the Old-English Riddles), but to the layman as well,
who would taste the literature of the ‘ages of darkness.’
The Notes are selective and are based to a considerable extent, as the
author notes, on those (in Latin) of Dr Ehwald’s edition of Aldhelm in the
Monumenta. It might have been noted (p. 71) that the Old-English Riddle
No. 35 (36) appears to be a translation of Aldhelm’s Lorica (No. 33) (see
Wyatt, ed. cit., pp. 92-93). For No. 100, ‘Creatura,’ see Wyatt, ed. cit.,
pp. 98-102, for an analysis of the relation of Aldhelm’s riddle to the Old-
English Riddle No. 40 (41), together with Professor Wyatt’s literal trans-
lation of Aldhelm’s text; from this last, by the way, the reader to whom
Reviews 359
Aldhelm’s esoteric vocabulary presents too serious obstacles may readily
estimate the adroitness of Professor Pitman’s translation and its closeness
to the original. In connection with No. 96, ‘Elefans,’ and its relation to
English ivories, one thinks at once of the Franks (or Clermont) Casket;
see G. Baldwin Brown, The Arts in Early England, Indexes, sub ‘ivories’
and ‘ivory,’ for an up-to-date discussion of this aspect of Old-English art.
In form this volume, pleasing to the eye, lives up to the usual high
standard of the series in whick it appears. The use of the ligatures @ and &
for ae and oe gives a slightly old-fashioned cast to the Latin text and does
not seem to the reviewer to represent an improvement over the style in the
Monumenta. The desirability of using the symbol v at all raises the perhaps
too delicate question of pronunciation. Professor Pitman has set an ad-
mirable example to translators of Mediaeval Latin verse, and more such
translations are needed. Miami University is to be complimented for sub-
sidizing the costs of publication.
The reviewer takes this occasion to remind the reader that the original
text, reproduced here as printed in Aldhelmi Opera, pp. 97 ff., in Mon.
Germ. Hist., Auct. Antiquiss., XV, ed. in 2 parts by Dr Rudolf Ehwald
(1919, 1914), may be obtained from the Weidmann Verlag, Berlin, for
36 (or 24) Marks.
F. P. Macouwn, Jr
Amadas et Ydoine, roman du XIII°® siécle, édité par John R. Reinhard. Paris: Champion, 1926
in ‘* Les Classiques francais du moyen age.” Pp. x, 299. Fes. 16.
StupENTs of mediaeval English literature and students of Shakspere will
welcome a new edition of Amadas et Ydoine, the one because, like the other
great mediaeval love-story, Tristan, it was originally written by an Anglo-
Norman; the other because of the Paris-Romeo-Juliet scene at the tomb.
One wishes that such matters might have been treated in the introduction;
but no doubt such a material will be included in Mr Reinhard’s Introduc-
tion to Amadas et Ydoine, now printing at the Duke University Press.
Sixty-three years ago Célestin Hippeau edited this romance for the first
time from the only MS. then known. Mr Reinhard’s edition is enriched by
fragments of two other MSS; in this respect it is superior to the edition of
1863. It is to be regretted, however, that Mr Reinhard’s edition sins
almost as grievously as does Hippeau’s on the score of misprints. Mr
Reinhard’s edition of Eledus et Serene, Austin, University of Texas, 1923,
although suffering from an inadequate introduction and glossary, fared far
better in this respect. Instances of wrong font and broken type are too
numerous to mention, but these blemishes reflect upon the series in which
this edition appears.
360 Renews
The reviewer is glad to append additions to the ‘Errata’ (p. [297]),
kindly communicated by the editor:
In text ‘P’: p. v, footnote 1, for (1414) read (1914); p. vi, line 15, for Re-
esten read Feesten; p. vi, line 16, for Magriete read Margriete; p. vii, line 1,
for Three read Thre; p. vii, line 2, for Munai read Mundi; p. 6, v. 92, add
semicolon after couvoita; p. 27, v. 398, for désiré read desiré; p. 79, v. 1837, for
Qu il read Qu’il; p. 80, v. 1881, add comma after Vimeu, delete comma after
Ponthieu; p. 81, v. 1422, for D ensegnement read D’ensegnement; p. 100,
v. 1912, add period after mont; p. 105, v. 2041, for mauvairs read mauvais;
p. 109, v. 2195, delete comma after soer and add period; p. 110, v. 2208,
for n avra read n’avra; p. 110, v. 2205, for n a joie read n’a joie; p. 122,
v. 2627, add comma after tendre; p. 133, v. 2978, for delivres read delivrés;
p. 146, v. 3413, for d Ydoine read d’Ydoine; p. 164, v. $995, for l’on read
Vont; p. 168, v. 4144, for E li read Et li; p. 175, v. 4354, delete un; p. 208,
v. 5466, for cvel read celle; p. 208, v. 5467, for en eve read envie; p. 225,
v. 6017, for derverteet read derverie et; p. 242, v. 6590, for oy read oy; p. 245,
v. 6681, for al’ aventure read a l’aventure; p. 266, v. 7378, for grand read
grant; p. 270, v. 7490, for otrove read otroi; p. 279, v. 7795, for Le read La;
p. 286, v. 85, for priss’a read pris’a; p. 299, for AMapas ET IpOINE read
AMADAS ET YDOINE.
In text ‘V’: p. 16, v. 267, for demarse, la read demaisele; p. 22, v. 403,
delete the apostrophe in le’ esteiist; p. 63, v. 1112, for semblan read semblant.
Mr Reinhard’s volume is, despite minor defects, a welcome addition
to convenient editions of Old-French texts and will be eagerly read by
students, especially by those already interested in its editor’s capital study
on the themes of Amadas in the Romanic Review, XV (1924), 179-265.
F. P. Macoun, Jr
The Book of Troilus and Criseyde by Geoffrey Chaucer. Edited from all the known manu-
scripts by Robert Kilburn Root. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1926.
Pp. xc, 573. 36.
AT THE moment of going to press there is only time to announce the publi-
cation on May 12, 1926, by the Princeton University Press of Professor
Root’s edition of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. The October issue of
SPECULUM will contain a full review of this important work.
*.
v
5
® 7s
aon
e
s
Be
-
“+
Ae rt &
SPECULUM
~ A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
DEC 27 1926
OCTOBER, 1926
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
Sse
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
Any person desirous of becoming a Member of the Mep1arvaL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
is requested to communieate with one of the Officers or with a Member. Candidates
are ected when nominated by a Member and approved by an Officer of the Acap-
gEmMy. Active Membership, Five Dollars per annum. Besides Active Membership, the
following classes of Membership are open to all who may wish to make further con-
tributions to the support and endowment of the Acapremy: Contributing Member-
ship, Ten Dollars per annum; Life Membership, One Hundred Dollars; Sustaining
Membership, Five Hundred Dollars. A Sustaining Member who subscribes at one
time One Thousand Dollars shall be known as a Benefactor; Ten Thousand Dollars,
as a Patron; and Fifty Thousand Dollars within Two Years of the Date of Incorpo-
ration (December 28, 1925) as a Founder. See By-Laws, §§11-14. |
’ OFFICERS OF THE ACADEMY
_ President
CuarRLes Homer Haskins
Harvard University |
First Vice-President Second Vice-President Third Vice-President
Jonn Marraews MAnNty ; JamMBs Fisiup WILLARD
University of Chicago 7 . University of Colorado
Treasurer ‘Executive Secretary Clerk
Jonn Nicno.tas Brown JoHN MARSHALL Rapa Apams Cram .
Providence, R. I. ‘ Cambridge, Mass. Boston, Mass.
Council |
Puiiie ScHUYLER ALLEN CxHarRLes Henry Bresson Georce Rateres Corsuan
University of Chicago University of Chicago 5 Boston University
Gorvon Haut Gzroutp Louts Joun Partow Grorce Artur Pumpro
Princeton University University of California New York City
ArtHur KinasLey PorTrer Wiiuam WaLKER RockweLt James Hugs Ryan
Harvard University Union Theological Seminary Catholic University of America
Joun Srrona Perry Tatuock JAMES WESTFALL. THOMPSON Kari Youna
Harvard University University of Chicago - Yale University
The purpose of the MrprarvaL AcapEeMy or AMERICA is “to conduct, encourage,
promote, and support research, publication, and instruction in mediaeval records,
literature, languages, arts, archaeology, history, philosophy, science, life, and all other
aspects of mediaeval civilization. . . .””— Extract from Agreement of Association.
Subscriptions, effective from January 1 of the current calendar-year, should be
paid to the MeprarvaL ACADEMY Or AMERICA, ¢/, Service Bureau, Lehman Hall,
Cambridge, Mass. Any Member wishing to withdraw must signify his intention in
writing prior to January 1 of the ensuing year; otherwise he will be considered liable
to pay his subscription for that year. | |
It is particularly requested that any change of residence or error in address be
communicated forthwith to the Executive Secretary of the Acapremy, °/, Service
Bureau, Lehman Hall, Cambridge, Mass. |
A copy of the By-Laws of the Acapemy will be sent post-free to each Member upon
election. Additional copies may be had from the Clerk at Fifty Cents each.
Specutum, A JouRNAL or MepiaEvat Sroniss, is delivered post-free to Members
not in arrear of the Annual Subscription and to Life Members and to the various
classes of Contributing Members. | :
- -
i ee ~
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
CONTENTS
ARTICLES
INLAND TRANSPORTATION IN ENGLAND DURING THE FOURTEENTH
CENTURY oc. oui cot, ee Riba oe a es BOR a . J. F. Wittarp 361
AUGUSTINE'S JOURNEY FROM ROME TO RICHBOROUGH. . A.S.Coox $75
THE POEMS ASCRIBED TO KING ENZIO ....... H. H. Toornton 398
THE ROMANCE TEXT OF THE STRASSBURG OATHS. WAS IT
WRITTEN IN THE NINTH CENTURY? ........ J. W. THomMpson
NOTES
es e e@ ee e@e@ @® @ e© oe e® @ @ e® e& ® @ e® @ e® j.® ® 6 @ e
AN ANGULAR FORM OF A RARE ABBREVIATION FOR -S
W. A. OtpratseR 443
YET ANOTHER NOTE IN REPLY TO A FURTHER NOTE ON A
me cnetier ads So: Tee 2s setae WG ies “api jhe de: Siri VE ects see oe UB Te Me L. THORNDIKE
LIBER DE COLORIBUS : ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA D. V. Tuompson, Jr.
ERRATA IN “LE LECTIONNAIRE DE SAINT-PERE”. .... A. Wiumart 450
REPORT ON THE FIRST ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MEDIAEVAL
ACADEMY OF AMERICA.............4.2.+e6-5
EVIE WS: ose Gs ie 6 des ese: Se a es we we ee oe ee
J.S. Zybura, Present-Day Thinkers and the New Scholasticism (J. H. Ryan); E. H.
Sehrt, Vollstindiges Worterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsdchischen Genesis (T.
Starck); A.S. Cook and C. B. Tinker, Select Translations from Old English Poetry
(F. P. Magoun, Jr); R. K. Root, The Book of Troilus and Criseyde, by Geoffrey
Chaucer (F. N. Robinson).
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF BOOKS RECEIVED ............2.228-. 467
NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
VOLUME I OCTOBER, 1926
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
SPECULUM, A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
EDITORIAL BOARD
Eprtror-1n-CHIEFr
Epwarkp KENNARD Ranp
Manaaine Epitor PusuisHinae Eprror
Francis Peasopy Magoun, JR. JOHN NicHoLAS BROWN
It is kindly requested that all communications intended for the above editors be addressed
% Service Bureau, Lehman Hall, Cambridge, Mass.
Wiiu1amM WITHERLE LAWRENCE JaMES Huau Ryan
Columbia University Catholic University of America
CuHarues Rurus Morey ErNeEst Hatca WILKINS
Princeton University University of Chicago
Louris JOHN PAETOW Kari YounG
University of California Yale University
ADVISORY BOARD
Partie SCHUYLER ALLEN GEORGE La PIANA
University of Chicago Harvard University
Harry Morcan AYRES JOHN MatrHews MANLY
Columbia, University University of Chicago
CHARLES HENRY BEESON Dana CartTon Munro
University of Chicago Princeton University
GroraE RALEIGH CorrémMaN WILuiAM ALBERT NITZE
Boston University University of Chicago
CorNELIA CATLIN COULTER ARTHUR KINGSLEY PORTER
Mount Holyoke College Harvard University
Rautpg ApamMs CrAM Frep Norris RosBiInson
Boston, Massachusetts Harvard University
Gorpon Ha.tut GEROULD JOHN Strona Perry TatLock
Princeton University Harvard University
GEORGE LIVINGSTONE HAMILTON JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
Cornell University University of Chicago
CHARLES Homer HAsKINS Lynn THORNDIKE
Harvard University Columbia University
JAMES FreLp WILLARD
University of Colorado
SpecuoLom, A JourNaL or MepisEvat Srupies, is published quarterly by the MeptaEvaL
ACADEMY OF AMERICA. The issues appear in January, April, July, and October. The sub-
scription price is Five Dollars; single copies may be had post-free for One Dollar and Fifty
Cents. Members of the AcaDEMy receive SPECULUM post-free. In case of accidental omission
in the delivery of SpEcuLuM, Members are requested to communicate forthwith in writing
with the Publishing Editor. MSS submitted for publication should be forwarded to the
Managing Editor, but MSS will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped and self-
addressed envelo For the details of editorial practice Contributors are directed to “‘ Notes
for Contributors’ at the end of this number. The Editors cannot assume responsibility for the
loss of MSS in the mails.
Vor. I, No. 4. — Copyright, 1926, by the Mediaeval Academy of America. —~ Painten me U.S
Entered as second-class matter, May 8, 1926, at the Post Office at Boston, Mass., under the Act of Peper 24, 1912.
SPECULUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
At
INLAND TRANSPORTATION IN ENGLAND DURING
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
By JAMES FIELD WILLARD
ROM the towns of England in the fourteenth century went
travellers on horseback on business or pleasure bent. As they
moved along the highway, they would meet pack-horses, carts, and
wagons bearing to the towns the produce of the manors or returning
with goods purchased in the markets. When in due time they reached
a bridge or ferry, they would see boats on the river with their oars-
men, or larger craft, towed or under sail, passing with their cargoes
to ports or distant towns. Paying the man at the bridge a farthing
or the ferryman his modest charge, they would pass over the river
and sooner or later reach their destination. At night in an inn they
could sleep in peace; for, unless they carried large sums of money,
the dangers of the morrow’s journey were not so great as seriously
to disturb their rest.!
Everyone who owned a horse or could afford to hire one travelled
on horseback. The great might occasionally use for their womenfolk
the large and elaborately decorated carriages that were pictured at
the time, but such vehicles must have been rare at best. Travel on
horseback has been made much of in modern books and need not
be discussed here. It may be added, however, that horses were con-
sidered so necessary for moving about the country that they appear
in the corrodies granted to men who had retired from the king’s
service to pass their later days within the precincts of a monastery.
' J. J. Jusserand, in his English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages (London 1889), has
given a vivid picture of mediaeval roads, bridges, and wayfarers, but he has not attempted
to describe the transportation of goods by land and water.
361
362 Inland Transportation in England
To these old or incapacitated men there was often granted, in addi-
tion to food and shelter for themselves, provender for one or two
horses and attendant grooms.'
When rivers were at hand they were at times made use of by
travellers. There was evidently a good deal of travel on the Thames
at or near London. The king and queen, in the king’s barges or in
hired boats, not only crossed the Thames, but also used the river to
pass between Westminster or Windsor and London.? The duke of
Lancaster, and presumably other magnates, employed barges for a
similar purpose.’ It is noted that the clerks of the chancery were
accustomed to go from the Temple to Westminster by water.‘ Early
in the century it was ordered that no boatman should cross the river
at night, and in 1391 a city ordinance provided that no boatman
should bring passengers into the Stews between sunset and sunrise.‘
There are incidental references to the use of boats in other districts
for the conveyance of passengers. The sacrist of Ely, for example,
commonly went in a boat on the Ouse and Cam on his way to and
from synods at Barnwell. He also journeyed to and from Lynn in
the same fashion. In the well-watered region about Ely such trips
by river and stream may well have been frequent. There is an inter-
esting story told in the return of an inquest held near Norwich in
1343.7 A large boat on the Yare, immoderately loaded, according to
the jurors, was accidentally sunk, and carried down with it forty
passengers, both men and women, as well as a considerable quantity
of goods. Examples such as these are rare and must be so; for, aside
from the fact that travel by boat was slow and horses were plentiful,
1 Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1301-07, p. 188; Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1502-07, p. 80;
Ibid., 1307-13, p. 580; Ibid., 1313-18, pp. 97,191. Henceforth these series will be referred to
as C. P. R. and C. C.R.
2 Liber Quotidianus Contrarotulatoris Garderobiae (London, 1787), pp. 53-54, 90, 96.
3 John of Gaunt’s Register (ed. 5. Armitage-Smith, Camden Society, London, 1911),
II, 155.
«C. C. R., 1330-33, p. 102.
8 Calendar of Letter Books of the City of London (ed. R. R. Sharpe), Letter Book C, p. 85;
ibid., Letter Book H, pp. 371-72. Cf. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London (ed.
R. R. Sharpe, London, 1914), p. 273.
6 Sacrist Rolls of Ely (ed. F. R. Chapman, Cambridge, 1907), II, 94, 169, 179.
7 Records of the City of Norwich (ed. W. Hudson and J. C. Tingey, Norwich, 1906-1910),
I, 228.
we
.— «eo me ee Se
Inland Transportation in England 863
notices of the employment of boats for local journeys would seldom
find their way into the records of the time.
Concerning the means of transportation of goods by land and
water in the fourteenth century there is abundant information. The
cart was ubiquitous. When, however, rivers and large streams were
near, the boat disputed and probably overthrew the supremacy of
its rival. Wagons, which were four-wheeled vehicles, and pack-
horses supplemented, rather than competed with, the work done by
the cart and boat.
The mediaeval cart was clumsy but efficient. There were carts
and lon carts, carts bound with iron and carts not so bound. A
strong found with iron was one whose wheels were protected from
wear by iron bands called strakes and heavy headed nails. Such
strong carts are mentioned in various classes of records and seem to
have occupied an important place in the transportation of heavy
goods across country. Wagons or wains, with their wheels similarly
protected, are also referred to. Carts were drawn by horses whose
number varied from one to six, though in one instance, as noted be-
low, eight-horse teams were used. One may safely conjecture that
the latter drew wagons. In the majority of cases where carts were
used for cross-country traffic, the team was three. Thorold Rogers,
however, in his estimate of the cost of the carriage of grain, adopted
the two-horse team as standard.’ For heavy loads from four to six
horses might be employed, whereas for short hauls and light loads
within the manor one or two horses might suffice. Very little infor-
mation is forthcoming as to the size of the teams that drew wagons;
the largest to which reference has been found was the one demanded
of the prior of Durham in 1333 for the carriage of tents and army
stores for the expedition against Scotland. It was to be a team of
ten sufficient oxen.? The heads of other religious houses were at
the same time ordered to send carts and wagons bound with iron
and drawn by five horses.
At the basis of mediaeval transportation lay carriage on or off
the manor. Among the duties of the tenants was that of carriage
1 James E. Therold Rogers, A History of Agriculture and Prices (Oxford, 1866), I, 657-58.
2 C. C. R., 1833-387, p. 100. See also C. P. R., 1813-17, p. 186.
364 Inland Transportation in England
in carts, either short hauls within the precincts or long hauls beyond
the boundaries of the manor to markets and elsewhere. The peasant
hauled manure to the fields, corn to the grange, brushwood and
other articles to the manor house. When he did not possess a horse,
he was at times forced to carry produce on his back. The tenant
might also be required to carry goods long distances from the manor.
Miss Neilson has noted in the case of the manors of Ramsey Abbey
carriage duties involving trips to London, St Albans, Cambridge,
Colchester, Ipswich, and Bury St Edmonds.' The carts and wagons
of the demesne, of which there were many, played their part in
manorial and extra-manorial carriage alongside of those of the
peasants.
How and where the peasants disposed of the crops they wished
to sell is another matter. That they frequently had considerable
quantities of grain and other produce on hand for sale is clear from
the returns of the assessment of the taxes upon personal property.
In the disposal of this surplus they presumably used the same carts
in which they hauled the grain of their manorial lord, and went to
the same markets. A portion of their grain for sale might be taken
off their hands from time to time by the king’s purveyors seeking
victuals for the army or navy, by purveyors of victuals for the house-
hold, the chancery, nearby castles, and the like. Some of these men
were given the right to requisition the carts they needed for carriage,
though there is frequent mention of the king’s carts and of carters
engaged in his service. There were also the travelling merchants,
traders in corn and victuals, who came into the local districts with
their carts; these men bought the grain and took it to the ports
along the coast from which it could be shipped to London and other
towns, or to foreign lands. Unless some such buyer appeared, the
peasant would transport his grain in carts or boats to the larger
towns that were near at hand. That this was expected will be shown
in the discussion of tolls.
Transportation from quarries, forests, and other bases of sup-
plies to the towns was normally in carts unless a river offered a
convenient highway. When, early in the fourteenth century, the
1 N. Neilson, Customary Rents (Oxford, 1910), pp. 61-62.
Inland Transportation in England 365
mayor of Leicester rendered his account of the expenses incurred on
the North Bridge, he set down in detail the cost of carrying gravel,
sand, and stone in carts.'! The same is true of the accounts dealing
with the repair of St Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, and of build-
ings in other places.? In these and other documents there are refer-
ences also to the cross-country carriage, in carts and wagons, of lead,
weapons of war, army stores, cloth, peat, timber, brushwood, fish,
beds, wine, wool, sea-coal, glass, hay, grain, and other articles. Now
and then we meet with descriptions of the conveyance of loads of
a different character. In this connection may be cited the seven
nuns of Watton carried in a covered cart,’ the criminals who were
taken from York to Scarborough in wagons, the sick man who trav-
elled in a covered cart to Louth Park only to die there, and, finally,
the body of a man who had been hanged, taken in a cart to the
cemetery for burial.®
When tolls were levied either by royal grant or by town ordi-
nance upon goods brought into a town for sale, certain articles were
rated by the cartload. These were usually heavy or bulky goods.
In the grant of pavage to be levied at Newark, fish, meat, iron, tin,
timber, hay, rushes, heath, faggots, coal, and brushwood were listed
in terms of the cartload.’ In other schedules of goods liable to toll,
salt, tan, bread, plaster of Paris, cloth, peat, stone, horseshoes,
baskets, oysters, and grain were described in the same terms. There
are also a number of instances in which tolls were levied by the week
upon carts laden with victuals coming into the towns, an indication
that the men of the neighborhood were expected to come in with
supplies with a certain degree of regularity. On the bridges in the
rural districts the victuals and merchandise subject to toll were
charged by the cartload and horseload.
1 Records of the Borough of Leicester (ed. M. Bateson), I, 350, 358; II, 8, 28, 78.
2 E. W. Brayley and John Britton, The History of the Ancient Palaces and Late Houses of
Parliament at Westminster, pp. 152, 189, 200; C. C. R., 1833-37, p. 109; C. P. R., 1348-60,
p. 188; Ibid., 1354-58, p. 439.
2 C. P. R., 1813-17, p. 501. 4 C. P. R., 1317-21, p. $58.
5 C. P. R., 1345-48, p. 4. 6 C. P. R., 1364-67, p. 60.
7 English Economic History, Select Documents (compiled and ed. A. E. Bland, P. A. Brown,
R. H. Tawney, London, 1914), pp. 183-34.
866 Inland Transportation in England
Throughout the century the government bought, borrowed,
purveyed, or directly hired carts for many purposes. Among the
expenses of the wardrobe in 1299-1300, there were many items re-
lating to the purchase of carts and horses to be used in the trans-
portation of army stores.! In 1307, various abbots and priors were
asked to lend carts and horses for the carriage of the goods of the
king’s household to Dover;? and during the following year several
sheriffs were ordered to provide carts, each with four horses, to
transport victuals for the army.? Carts were also employed at various
times for the carriage of the rolls and memoranda of the exchequer
from Westminster to York,‘ of the goods of the households of the
king and queen, and of victuals for all departments. Several times
during the year 1333 large sums of money were sent from York to
Newcastle in carts. Four men-at-arms and five archers guarded
one thousand pounds in transit between the two towns; the out-
ward journey took three days, but the carter returned to York in
two days.’ Later in the same year four men-at-arms, one hobelar
and five archers guarded the transportation of the same amount of
money.® In the year 1348 Richard Potter, clerk of the chancellor,
was granted protection on his journey through the country with a
cart, seeking “brushwood, coal, victuals and other things to be
bought for the household of the chancellor.”” Behind the army as it
moved toward the north or the west came the humble cart, the pred-
ecessor of the motor truck. Magnates who were ordered to come
to the host in 1323 were directed to bring with them saddles for
sumpter-horses “‘besides the cars [wains] and carts that have been
usually brought in such armies,” on the chance that it might be
decided to substitute carriage by horse for that of the slow-moving
cart.®
Some of the journeys made by the carts in the fourteenth century
were rather long. In 1367 the parts of a table of alabaster bought
1 Lib. Cont. Gard., pp. 105, 106, 112, 127, 129.
2 C.C. R., 1307-18, p. 50. 2 C. C. R., 1307-13, pp. 89-40.
‘ D. Broome, “Exchequer Migrations to York in the Thirteenth Century,” in Essays in
Mediaeval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester, 1925), pp. 294, 295.
® Issue Roll, No. 269 (7 Edward III, Easter), 21 June.
® Ibid., 22 July. 7 C. P. R., 1348-60, p. 125. °C. C. R., 1818-23, p. 708.
Inland Transportation in England 367
for the altar of St George’s, Windsor, were brought in ten carts,
each with eight horses, from Nottingham to Windsor in seventeen '
days.'! From Tutbury, in eastern Staffordshire, alabaster was carted
to London.? Darts for the army were sent in 1337 in a new wagon
costing sixty-three shillings and eight pence, from the forest of Dean
to Berwick.* At another time carts transported the records of the
bishop to Worcester from London, and late in the reign of Edward I
two carts with victuals for the army made the journey from Malms-
_ bury, in Wiltshire, to Carlisle in twelve days.‘ There is in existence
a roll of the expenses of the carriage of arrows and bow-strings from
various parts of England to the Tower of London in 1342.5 These
articles were normally carried in carts drawn by three, four, or five
horses. The arrows bought in the county of Nottingham and Derby
were placed in barrels (pipas) for shipment. A four-horse cart trans-
ported three hundred and eleven sheaves of arrows from Bristol to
the Tower, a distance of one hundred and five leagues, at the cost of
seventeen shillings and six pence, or two pence a mile. It took a cart
with five horses eight days to go from Gloucester to London and |
return, a distance of one hundred and eighty leagues; the charge was
twenty-two pence a day for the cart and horses. To make the journey
from the city of Lincoln to and from the Tower took nine days, and
the charge was the same. The carriage of the goods of the Great
Exchequer and of the Receipt from Westminster to York in 1333
took nine days, and thirty-two carters were employed.® In the king’s
butler’s account rendered in 13 Edward III there is notice of a
large amount of wine purchased in Bristol.’ This was carried in
carts to London.
The transportation of the king’s wool of the grant made in 1332
offers many striking examples of long hauls and of their cost.® It is
noteworthy that in several instances the hauling was done in late
1 L. F. Salzmann, English Industries in the Middle Ages (London, 1913), p. 87.
2 C. P.R., 1561-64, p. 282.
2 C. C. R., 1387-39, p. 11. 4 C.C. R., 1813-18, p. 548.
’ Pipe Roll, No. 187 (16 Edward ITT), mm. 47a, 47d.
® Issue Roll, No. 269 (7 Edward III, Easter), 19 May.
7 Pipe Roll, No. 184 (18 Edward ITI), m. 47a.
® The following statements are based upon the accounts found in Pipe Roll, No. 188
(12 Edward ITI), mm. 47 ff.
—_
368 Inland Transportation in England
autumn and winter, when the roads, as described by some modern
writers, should have been nearly impassable. The wool was trans-
ported from Gloucester to London, a distance estimated as ninety
leagues, at the cost of four shillings a sarplar. The term league was
synonymous with mile, and a sarplar was a bale of wool without, it
would seem, a fixed weight, though larger and heavier than a sack.
The same charge by the sarplar was made for carriage from Mid-
dleton, Glastonbury, and Dorchester in Somerset to London, over
one hundred leagues. Wool was carried from Hereford to the same
city, a distance of one hundred and sixteen leagues, for six shillings
a sarplar, and from Bridgewater and Wells, reckoned at one hun-
dred and twenty leagues, for four shillings a sack. There are also
several instances of shorter hauls in carts. One may be cited here
because of its special interest. During the month of October and
the early days of November, 1338, wool was carried from North-
ampton to Boston, the distance being fifty-four leagues, for two
shillings a sack, while from the tenth of November to the fourth of
January the charge for the same carriage was three shillings. The
same fifty per cent increase in the cost of transportation was made
for the carriage from Oundle to Boston during the same months.
The accounts of the wool subsidy, so far as they have been examined,
indicate that the wool was transported either in carts or in boats,
though it is not improbable that the local collectors utilized the pack-
horse in bringing small quantities to the assembling points.
As a means of transporting goods in the fourteenth century, the
pack-horse, or sumpter, seems to have occupied a position of far less
importance than the cart. Pack-horses were, no doubt, in constant
use, but in the records of the period they are most frequently men-
tioned in connection with local carriage or with the conveyance of
light or precious articles. They were employed, for instance, at or near
the seacoast for the carriage of fish. They were continually used to
carry treasure or money across country in baskets or packs. The
rolls of the chancery were carried on pack-horses until 1354, when,
it was stated, because the chancery was held in a fixed place, there
was no longer any need of them in that connection.' Occasional
1 C. P. R., 1354-58, pp. 148-49.
Inland Transportation in England 369
mention is made of merchants with their pack-horses journeying
through the country. When the king’s horses were sent to the
country to be cared for, sumpter horses were usually named with the
palfreys and cart-horses.
Additional information that is sorely needed in relation to car-
riage on horseback is supplied by the schedules of tolls of the period.
When grants of pontage or pavage were made for the repair of country
bridges and highways, it was customary to describe the goods that
were to be charged in such terms as victuals, goods, or merchandise,
and as being for sale. The measures normally employed were the
cartload and horseload, and for the latter the toll demanded was
usually one fourth of that levied upon the cartload. On carts passing
over the bridge at Marlow, as well as on boats passing under it, the
charge was a penny, while for each horseload of goods exceeding five
shillings in value the charge was a farthing.’ At times, as at or near
London, tolls were levied by the week on pack-horses as well as on
carts laden with victuals and merchandise.” Horseloads also appear
as a measure of articles subject to tolls at the gates of the towns.
Among these articles are light and perishable goods, such as glass,
jars, jugs, bottles of water, fish, oysters, honey, apples, cheese,
onions, garlic, bread, flour, and cloth. Most of these are such as
would be brought from points near at hand; several are estimated in
both horseloads and cartloads, as were also, though infrequently,
corn and wool. .
In many districts of mediaeval England where navigable rivers
were found, the boat was used to a large extent in place of the cart
and the pack-horse. There were, so it was stated in the fourteenth
century, four great rivers, the Thames, the Severn, the Ouse, and
the Trent. Each of these had from ancient times been “‘open for the |
passage of ships and boats for the common profit of the people.’’?
Complaints were made at various times that these rivers were ob-
structed by weirs, kiddles, and other fishing contrivances, and meas-
ures were taken to remove these hindrances to navigation.‘ In addi-
1C. P. R., 1313-17, p. 281. 2 C. L. B. ... London, F, pp. 100, 102-08; ihid.,
7 C.R. R., 1348-50, p. 76. G, pp. 81, 140-41.
* Many instances of obstruction have been gathered by C. T. Flower in the two volumes
of the Selden Society entitled Public Works in Mediaeval Law (London, 1915, 1923).
370 Inland Transportation in England
tion to the four great rivers named, there were many of lesser fame
that played an important part in the transportation of goods. On
all of these the flat-bottomed shute, the rowboat, the barge with
its oars and sail, and the sailing ship carried victuals and supplies
between inland towns, or to and from the seaports. |
The Thames was the great artery of inland water traffic in the
southern part of England. It was navigable as far as Oxford, one
| hundred and twelve miles from London Bridge; but fair-sized boats
seem to have been content to stop at Henley, forty-seven miles
below Oxford. Part of the wool of Oxfordshire was in 1338 assembled
at Oxford, carried to Henley overland, and from there shipped to
London in shutes at the low cost of six pence a sarplar, or about
one tenth of a penny a mile.! Grain was sent down-stream to London, —
and stone and other materials freighted up-stream to Windsor or
beyond. At London and between London and Westminster there
was a large amount of local traffic. Many of the materials used in
the repair of the buildings at Westminster were brought to that town
from London. The transfer of the treasure of the crown from West-
minster to the Tower of London was made again and again in boats.?
On the twenty-sixth of September, 1322, twenty-four porters were
paid twenty shillings for the carriage of fifty-two barrels of money,
each containing five hundred pounds, from the treasury at West-
minster to the Queen’s Bridge on the river, and from the water’s
edge at the Tower to a chapel in the high tower.? From the Queen’s
Bridge to the Tower the barrels were transported in two barges and
four boats at the cost of two shillings and nine pence. Why Edward IT
caused the removal of such a large sum to the Tower at that par-
ticular time is an interesting problem to be solved. In 1372 it was
proclaimed that no boatman should charge more than two pence for
the hire of his boat between London and Westminster, and no more
than three pence when the boat was full.‘ There are references to
the local transportation of victuals on the river,’ to boats going to
1 Pipe Roll, No. 183 (12 Edward III), m. 47.
2 Issue Roll of Thomas de Brantingham (ed. and trans. F. Devon), pp. 150, 171, 178, 204.
3 Issue Roll, No. 116 (16 Edward II, Michaelmas), m. 7, left-hand panel.
4C. L. B.... London, G, p. $01.
5 C. P. R., 1348-50, p. 358; C. C. R., 1354-60, p. $20.
Inland Transportation in England 371
Chelsea for grass,' to Greenwich for reeds,? and to Deptford for
hurdles.®
The Thames from its mouth to London must have been a very
busy river, for there are ships coming from the Continent and from
the coastwise towns to be reckoned with as well as river boats.
The Lea joined the Thames near the city, and down it came shutes
from Ware and Waltham bringing victuals for London. Farther
down stream the Medway opened a water highway into Kent as far
at least as Maidstone. Along the river, stone was shipped to West-
minster from Maidstone several times in the years 1365 and 1366;
in 1356 a little ship of Maidstone was arrested while on its way to
the staple at Westminster with two sarplars of wool.‘ Permission
was granted to load wool in Queensborough and Faversham on the
Swale for shipment to the same staple.5 From coastwise towns even
as far away as Cornwall grain was freighted for the provisioning of
London, in ships of London merchants or of traders from other
places. Up the river came fish from Yarmouth, hides and sea-coal
from Newcastle, marble from Wareham, stone from Devonshire, fire-
wood from Winchelsea, and commodities from foreign towns.
To the north of the Thames the rivers emptying into the Wash
opened the way into a fertile, thickly settled, and prosperous district. :
These rivers were the Nen, Welland, Witham, and, most important
of all, the Ouse. The city of Ely lay on the Ouse in this well-watered
region, and the sacrist of the abbey made full use of the advantages
offered for water transportation. Goods were brought by the Cam
and the Ouse to Ely from Stourbridge Fair and Cambridge.* At |
various times cloth, canvas, tallow, wax, and lead were shipped to
the city from Boston. Most of the supplies needed by the abbey
were, however, purchased at Lynn and shipped by the Ouse to Ely.
When the sacrist bought goods at Newmarket, Barnwell, or other
places not lying on a waterway, these were carried to the nearest
point on a river and sent the remainder of the way in boats. It has
1 Cal. Coroners’ Ralls . . . London, p. 128.
? Brayley and Britton, Houses of Parliament, p. 160.
3 Idem, p. 195.
‘ Idem, pp. 188, 194-95; C. C. R., 1354-60, p. 248.
5 C. C. R., 1369-74, p. 389. ® Sacrist Rolls of Ely, passim.
372 Inland Transportation in England
been shown that in the same district carriage by water, as one of the
manorial duties of the peasants, was not unknown.' Other records
inform us that grain was shipped at Cambridge for Lynn, and down
river from elsewhere to both Lynn and Boston. Huntingdon stood
‘ at the head of the navigation of the Ouse.” From a point near that
town in 1338 a large quantity of wool was sent in boats to St Ives,
and thence transported in shutes to Lynn, a distance estimated at
the time as seventy leagues.* |
The other rivers emptying into the Wash were also navigable for
a considerable distance inland. The Nen, as has been shown else-
' where, was of importance in the corn trade.‘ When, in 1331, an
inquest was held concerning interference with the navigation of the
Nen, the jurors found that damage had been done to the counties
of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Lincoln, and Northampton, and it was
ordered that the obstruction be removed.’ The Witham was navi-
: gable as far as Lincoln for fair-sized boats. Just before the opening
of the century, the king and his court went from Boston to Lincoln
in thirty-seven barges and boats.* Later, when the navigation of the
river was obstructed, a commission was issued for its cleansing with
instructions that the channel was to be from thirty to forty feet
wide and ten deep.’ Another means of reaching Lincoln was by the
artificial waterway called the Foss Dyke, which connected the Trent
with the Witham at that city. A jury stated in 1375 that ships and
boats of all kinds from Nottingham, York, and Kingston-upon-Hull,
laden with victuals and other things for sale, used to come by the
Trent and the Foss Dyke to Lincoln and to go from thence to
Boston.®
By the river system of which the Trent is the principal member
and the Humber the outlet, river craft could penetrate to a large
portion of Yorkshire and to the counties of Lincoln and Nottingham.
1 N. Neilson, Economic Conditions on the Manors of Ramsey Abbey, p. 38.
2 Lib. Cont. Gard., p. 180; C. C. R., 1313-18, p. 355; C. P. R., 1317-21, pp. 212, $11.
2 Exchequer Accounts, K. R., Bundle 552, No. 18, m. 1.
‘N.S. B. Gras, The Erolution of the English Corn Market (Cambridge, 1915), p. 62.
6 Public Works, II, 360. 6 Lib. Cont. Gard., p. 60.
1 C. P. R., 1327-30, p. 349.
8 Public Works, 1, 292, Cf. C. P. R., 1364-67, p. 138.
Inland Transportation in England 373
The town of Nottingham marked the limit of the navigation of the |
Trent. Several complaints were made during the century, of obstruc-
tions at Colwick that hindered the passage of ships and boats bring-
ing victuals and merchandise there.' York, on the northern Ouse,
had a quay, and to it ships could carry goods from coastwise towns.”
Wool of the grant of 1338 was sent thence by water to Hull, a dis-
tance of fifty leagues, at the cost of six pence a sack, or a little over
a tenth of a penny a mile.? In 1339, however, it was intimated that
great ships could not reach York if the water was low and had to
unload at Selby farther down the stream.‘ The Ure joins the Ouse
a little above the city of York, and on it wool was shipped from
near Milby to York.5 On the Wharfe, which flows into the Ouse
between York and Selby, there was navigable water at least as far as
Tadcaster. When, in 1338, the collectors of wool in Lancashire were
directed to send what they had gathered across England to Hull,
they transported it in carts to Tadcaster, and then shipped it by
water to Hull. The Derwent was navigable to Stamford Bridge
for ships and boats,’ the Don to Doncaster,® the Aire to Brotherton.’
The Hull was open for river traffic to Wansford, near Great Duffield,
at least, for wool was sent from that place to Hull at the cost of
three pence a sack.!°
The traffic on the other rivers of England need not detain us long.
=
—
~_
The Severn, in the west, was navigable as far as Worcester. Bristol,
so it was stated in 1363, was sustained by corn brought from the
counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and Hereford, probably by the
convenient waterway furnished by the Severn and Avon." In letters
patent issued in 1348 it was alleged that merchants and others
daily shipped corn at Tewksbury for Bristol, but that, instead of
selling it there, they transferred it to great ships and crayers to be
1 Records of the Borough of Nottingham (ed. W. H. Stevenson), I, 227-29, 413-41;
C. P. R., 1301-07, pp. 94, 269.
2 C. P. R., 1367-70, p. 271; Ibid., 1374-77, p. 110; Public Works, II, 258. Cf. C. P. R.,
1813-17, p. 383; [bid., 1317-21, p. 207.
2 Pipe Roll, No. 183, m. 47d. 4C. P. R., 1338-40, p. 398.
5 Pipe Roll, No. 183, m. 47d. 6 Pipe Roll, No. 183, m. 47d.
7 Calendar of Inquisitions, Miscellaneous, II, 320-21.
°C. P.R., 1343-45, p. 91. °C. P. R., 1367-70, p. 48.
10 Pipe Roll, No. 188, m. 47d. 1 C. P. R., 1361-64, pp. 409-10.
374 Inland Transportation in England
carried to the king’s enemies.' In the same western district victuals
were taken to Monmouth, at least, on the Wye, and to and from
Bath in crayers and boats. There are notices of river traffic in the
eastern part of England on the Tees, the Tyne, and several lesser
streams. There seems also to have been considerable transportation
on the Yare to Norwich. From that city grain could be shipped to
London; and there were swathes or quays to which it was directed
that all ships and boats should be taken for loading and unloading.’
In this brief sketch of inland transportation any consideration of
the highways of England or of the connection between the river
systems by way of the sea has of necessity been omitted. The coast-
wise trade, with its quaint cogs and barges, its wrecks and pirates,
is a picturesque phase of mediaeval economic life, but it has no place
in this paper. The records examined make it clear that the roads
of the fourteenth century were not quite so bad as they are often
pictured, and that heavy carts moved over them at a reasonable
speed. What is more, the transportation of goods was to a high
degree free from danger. On every stream of fair size there were
boats; on every road there were carts and pack-horses. The most
vivid impression is that of the large amount of movement along the
roads and streams, and with it the lack of isolation of mediaeval
towns and villages.
1 C. P. R., 1348-50, pp. 67-68.
2 Records of Norwich, 1, 62-64; II, 286; C. C. R., 1374-77, p. 119.
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO.
- os Ft? cee Eo - —_— =. ee _ a a oe |
AUGUSTINE’S JOURNEY FROM ROME TO
RICHBOROUGH
By ALBERT STANBURROUGH COOK
1. From Rome To THE RHONE
UGUSTINE of England, who died, as nearly as we can ascer-
tain, on May 26, 604,' had been prior? of Pope Gregory’s
monastery at Rome, which was founded about 574.3 In this monas-
tery, according to a somewhat doubtful letter of Pope Vitalian, Au-
gustine was the roommate of Gregory,‘ the latter having been born
about 540, and dying on March 12, 604.° How old, in the light of
these facts, shall we consider Augustine to have been when, in 596,
he was dispatched by Gregory as abbot of the company of some forty
monks destined to inaugurate the conversion of England — one
whom they were unquestioningly to obey in all things?* Let us
begin by assuming that he was the coeval of Gregory, in which case
he would have been 56 years old at the time of the journey, and
would have been about 64 when he died. King Athelbert,’ who
died Feb. 24, 616, came to the throne in 560, and therefore reigned
for a number of years equal to the age which we have tentatively
assigned to Augustine in 596; and that his life had been an active
one for 37 years after his accession would seem to be implied by
Bede’s statement (1.25) that he had by that time extended his do-
minions to the Humber, by which the Southern Saxons are divided
from the Northern. Whatever uncertainty attaches to the above
1 So Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 3.4; cf. Bede, Eccl. Hist., ed. Plummer 2.81; Lieber-
mann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen 3.3.
2 Gregorit I Pape Registrum Epistolarum IX. 222 (ed. Ewald and Hartmann 2.218).
3 Dudden, Gregory the Great (1905) 1.106; cf. 1.187.
4 Haddan and Stubbs 3.116.
5 Dudden 2.268, who says that Bede (2.1) wrongly gives the date as 605.
6 Bede 1.23; Reg. (see above, note 2) VI. 50° (1.426).
7 Born 552, according to the twelfth-century MS. E (Cotton Domitian A. 8) of the Saxon
Chronicle (see Plummer and Earle’s edition 1.xii, 17). Howorth (Satnt Augustine of Canterbury,
p. 51) thinks it incredible that he should have been only eight years old at his accession, but
this was.the age at which Osred succeeded Aldfrith of Northumbria in 705 (Oman, England
before the Norman Conquest, 1928, p. $16).
875
876 #$Augustine’s Journey from Rome to Richborough
conjecture, it will hardly be contended that, at the assumed age
of 56, Augustine would probably have been too infirm ? to undertake
his mission, seeing that Gregory’s good judgment ® would have with-
held him from making so obvious a blunder in the choice of an agent.
On the other hand, Augustine was not too young to be entrusted
with the weighty responsibility of being instrumental, under the
prudent counsels of his chief, in founding a new spiritual province
to redress the wavering balance of the old.‘
Opinion is divided as to whether Augustine and his companions
traveled from Rome to Southern Gaul by water or by land. Oman
supposes them to have made the journey by land (in Mason, The
Mission of St. Augustine, 1897, p. 171):
In 596 the Lombards were still ravaging Tuscany and Umbria, though
they had turned back from Rome itself. Augustine must have passed
through towns and fields still black with their burnings when he set his face
toward Gaul and the Straits of Dover.
The substance of this Oman repeats in his England before the
Norman Conquest, 1923, p. 257. He had been anticipated by Lin-
gard, (Anglo-Saxon Church, ed. 1858, 1.20): ““The missionaries tra-
versed with speed the north of Italy, and crossed the Gallic Alps.”
On the other hand, Dudden (2.105) explicitly asserts of Augus-
tine: “He passed through the Ostian Gate ® to become the Apostle
of the English nation. From Ostia, Augustine and his companions
pursued their way by sea till they reached the island of Lerins.’’’
1 Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus, when he set forth from Rome to Canterbury in 668,
was ten years older.
2 Gocelin, who flourished at the end of the eleventh century, had heard of a certain man
who “‘intimabat autem a parentibus sibi insinuatam ipsius B. Augustini formam et personam
patriciam, staturam proceram et arduam, adeo ut a scapulis populo superemineret”’ (Vt.
Aug. 49: AA. SS. 19.391).
3 Dudden (2.278) speaks of “‘his fine business capacity, his far-seeing statesmanship, his
thorough grasp of details the most intricate.”
4 See especially Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter 2.2 157, 168.
5 Oman seems here to have been indebted to Gregory’s homily on Ezekiel, the relevant
portions of which have been translated by Dudden (2.18), since between 598 and 598 we are
left largely to inference for the ravages of the Lombards (see Dudden 2.23, 38).
* But see below, p. 384.
7 Howorth (op. cit., p. 28), evidently follows Dudden in saying: “It is pretty certain that
they went by sea, setting out from Ostia and making for Lerins.”
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 877
Oman seems to intimate that Augustine would have passed
through Umbria, as well as Tuscany. This would have led him far
from the direct route, which followed the Via Aurelia, with its con-
tinuations, the Via Aemilia and the Via Julia, as far as Genoa (virtu-
ally the line of the modern coast-railway), and thence, following the
coast, to Nice, or Antibes, or whatever point would best serve for
embarkation to the isle of Lérins (now St. Honorat). From Rome
to Genoa the distance by rail is 310 miles, and from Genoa to Cannes,
now the most convenient port for St. Honorat, is 1854 miles, making
the total distance from Rome to Cannes 4454 miles. (From Rome
to Marseilles, 566 miles.) |
How many days should we allow for such a trip by land? This
would of course depend upon whether the travelers rode or walked.
We must remember that it was a band of forty men, the leader of
whom we have supposed to be nearer 60 than 50 years of age; that
they had been inmates of a monastery in the heart of Rome; and
that, in so troublous a time, they would not have been accustomed
1 Bede says (1.25): “‘socii ejus, viri, ut ferunt, ferme XL” (according to the OE. version:
‘“*he was one of forty”; Zlfric, Hom. 2.128, renders: “‘his companions, who are reckoned at
forty men’’). Bede immediately adds: ‘‘Acceperunt autem, precipiente beato papa Gregorio,
de gente Francorum interpretes” (OE.: ‘“They also brought with them interpreters from
France, as St. Gregory directed them”; Zlfric: “‘Augustine had taken interpreters from the
realm of the Franks, as Gregory had commanded him, and he, through the mouth of those
interpreters, preached the word of God to the king and his people”). The letters of Gregory
on the subject are of a different purport. In that to the young kings, Theoderic and Theode-
bert (Reg. VI. 49:2.423-4), he says (Mason, as above, pp. 31-3): “It has reached us that the
English nation [gentem], by the mercy of God, desires earnestly to be converted to the Christian
faith, but that the priests [bishops] in the neighborhood [in Gaul] take no notice, and hang
back from kindling the desires of the English by exhortations of their own. . . . We have also
instructed them to take with them some presbyters [priests] from the neighborhood, with
whose help they may be able to find out what the English mean, and to assist them by their
advice. . . in making up their minds. In order that they may present an effective and suitable
appearance in this matter, we beseech your Highnesses . . . that our missionaries [ht quos direxi-
mus] may obtain your gracious favor.” Under the same date, July 28, 596, Gregory writes
(Reg. VI. 57:2.431) to Brunhild, the grandmother of the kings, as follows (Mason, pp. 84-5):
‘‘We ... inform you that the English nation, by God’s favor, desires to become Christian,
but that the priests [bishops] who are in the neighborhood have no pastoral solicitude for
them... . We have also instructed them to take with them presbyters from the neighborhood
with a view to this work. ... We beg that you will see that under your protection he reaches
the English nation in safety.”
Whatever helpers Augustine brought with him from France, there seems no reason why
they should have exceeded two or three, and are very likely not to have been included in the
number of forty.
878 Augustine’s Journey from Rome to Richborough
to making long journeys outside the walls. Then, if they walked,
the pace must have been accommodated to the strength of the
weakest member. Moreover, such a party can hardly have traveled
without baggage: there would have been changes of raiment, books,
paintings, crosses, vestments, and no doubt relics, considering
Gregory’s zeal in promoting the veneration, the collection, and the
bestowal of them.' In order to transport them, and to protect them
from the weather, sumpters or wagons would have been required,
with servants to conduct and care for the animals. Then the com-
pany, thus swollen, would need to be lodged every night, and pro-
vided with regular nourishment. Inns to accommodate such num-
bers must have been scarce at the best of times, if indeed they ever
existed along this route. Monasteries adequate to their needs are
not to be thought of. Supposing that by any means the expedition
could have been regularly housed and fed, the expense would have
been considerable. But with such devastation as the Lombards had
inflicted, supplies must have been almost impossible to procure by
the wayfaring man, to say nothing of a wayfaring band of fifty men,
together with their animals. If we suppose the monks to have
ridden, the difficulties would have been still greater, for the number
of their beasts, and perhaps of their servants, would thus have in-
creased.
How many days would be required for such wayfarers, or such a
caravan, to journey from Rome to Cannes, opposite Lérins, the dis-
tance being, as we have seen, some 445 miles? It has been computed
that Chaucer, traveling in 1372 from London to Genoa, may have
averaged 20 miles a day, three days being consumed in crossing from
London to Boulogne.’ This agrees with the NED. s. v. Journey (II.2):
“*An ordinary day’s travel. ... As a measure of distance, varying
with the mode of travel, etc.; usually estimated in the Middle Ages
at 20 miles.” Benjamin of Tudela, of the twelfth century, says
(T. Wright, Early Travels in Palestine, p. 66) that three days were
1 See Dudden 1.277-282.
2 See Mather, Mod. Lang. Notes 11.212 (428-4); 12.9-10 (18-19); K. Young, in
Kittredge Anniversary Papers, p. 415, note 1. Cf. F. Ludwig, Untersuchungen iiber die Reise-
und Marschgeschwindigkeit im XII. und XIII. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1897).
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 3879
required from Arles to Marseilles, 53 miles.’ In the sixth century, it
is true, Procopius reckoned that an unencumbered traveler could get
from Rome to Capua (127 miles by rail) in five days (Bell. Goth.,
1.14.6; cf. 1.15.19). On the other hand, we may note Howorth’s
comment on the entrance of the monks into Canterbury (op. cit.,
p-64): “‘To cloistered monks, unaccustomed to exercise, a ten miles’
walk would have been a wearisome trial.”’ At the rate of 20 miles
a day, the journey from Rome to Cannes would consume over 22
days; and even at 25 miles a day, would require 18 days.
But the company reached Marseilles before Augustine returned
to Rome, the distance between the two cities being about 566 miles,
and the time consumed something like 28, or at least 23, days.
Double these figures, and it will result that the northward journey
of the whole band from Rome, plus Augustine’s return from Mar-
seilles, would have consumed 56 (46) days. Add three weeks for
their entertainment in Gaul,? with perhaps three days for Augus-
tine’s inteviews with the Pope and the preparation of a dozen
letters by the Papal chancellery, and we shall see that the company
must have left Rome 80 days earlier than July 23 (say, May 4),
with a remote chance of the number of days having been as small
as 70 (with an assumed start on May 14). Then, by the time that
1 The speed under the posting service of the Roman Empire constitutes no criterion (see
Friedlinder, Roman Life and Manners 1.280-2; Mooney, Travel among the Ancient Romans,
pp. 83-5).
In 1658, two English travelers, Mortoft and Stanley, were at Marseilles. ‘‘There being
no ship to carry them to Italy, they determined to follow the coast road to Genoa, riding
on horse-back as far as Nice, where they were obliged to hire mules for the worst part of the
journey. It took ten days of pretty rough and dangerous going before they reached
Genoa (256 miles].”’ So [London] Times Lit. Suppl., July 15, 1926, p. 473.
2 According to Bede (1.23), the monks, being seized with craven terror, “began to think
of returning home, rather than proceed to a barbarous, fierce, and unbelieving nation, to
whose very language they were strangers; and by common consent they decided that this
was the safer course.” In order to arrive at such a state of panic fear, the ambassadors must
have received many reports from various quarters; at Lérins, where they probably made the
longest stop, the missionary spirit would no doubt have been more in evidence (Augustine
told Gregory that the presbyters, deacons, and the whole congregation were living together in
unanimity and concord, and seventy years later Benedict Biscop, for whose praise see Stubbs,
Dict. Chr. Btog. 1.809, received the tonsure there, and remained for two years; cf. Bede, ed.
Plummer 1.365-6).
880 # Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough
Augustine rejoined them, it would have been August 20 (or 15),
and Augustine would have been ceaselessly occupied for 108 (or
93) days, before the whole delegation could begin its further travels.
A rough estimate might result in some such figures as these: —
Roman road from Marseilles to Aix, 1 day; do. Aix to Cannes
(Antibes?), 5 days; return to Marseilles by road, 6 days; sojourn in
the three monasteries, 9 days. At Lérins they must have had ample
time to acquaint themselves with the conditions there; and at Mar-
seilles they must have received gratifying attentions at the hands
of the authorities, since the governor (Patricius) of the province was
the only one of the three functionaries to whom, in addition to mak-
ing acknowledgments, Gregory preferred a request for further assis-
tance to the missionaries (Reg. VI.56: 1.430; Mason, op. cit., p. 30):
‘““What goodness and kindliness, together with the charity which
is pleasing to Christ, is conspicuous in you, we have learned by the
bringer of these presents, Augustine, the servant of God. . .-. So
we greet your Lordship with a father’s tenderness, and beg that the
bringer of these presents, and the servants of God who accompany
him, may obtain encouragement from you where they may stand
in need of it, so that, finding your favor, he may be able the better
to fulfil, with the Lord’s help, the duties laid upon him.”” Apropos
of the hospitality at Marseilles, it occurs to me as a possibility that
merchants who controlled the trade from Britain down the Rhone
(see Charlesworth, Trade-Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire,
pp. 187, 276) may, on learning the errand of the travelers, have been
instrumental in the attempt to dissuade them from proceeding, fear-
ing that eventually the traffic might make its way, with the opening
up of England, into other hands; but perhaps this is an unworthy
suspicion.
Let us now consider what the sea-voyage would have been. As
to the speed of ships, we are told (Mooney, op. cit., p. 187):
According to Marcian . . . of Heraclea, a geographer of the fourth
century A.D., a ship with favorable winds could sail 803 English miles per
day; a fast-going cruiser, 104 miles. It must be remembered that, in the
— eC .
_ Pe _-_* =_ -_ 7 ee eg
Augustine’s Journey from Rome to Richborough 381
averages just stated, night-time is not included, for Herodotus . . . makes
the statement that in midsummer a vessel could sail . . . 1494 miles in 24
hours. Aristides . . . testifies that a ship, aided by a good wind, could go
188 miles in 24 hours.!
We may, following Gibbon (ed. Bury 3.359, note), accept “‘the
loose reckoning that a ship could sail, with a fair wind, 1000 stadia,
or 125 miles, in the revolution of a day and night,” with Bury’s
supplement (p. 504) that “11 or 12 hundred stadia” could be sailed
in the same time, and we may assume a range of from 125 to 150
miles. Taking the smaller of these, the run from Portus, the harbor
of Rome, to Cannes would be made in three and a half days, and
that to Marseilles in about four days and a half.
It would, of course, be an absurdity to conclude that because,
under the most favorable circumstances, Marseilles could be reached
from Rome in approximately five days, the round trip could be made
in ten, which would be virtually impossible even under modern
conditions. For one thing, vessels could not be commanded at a
day’s notice. Mooney observes (op. ctt., p. 123):
There is no evidence that there were among the Romans any regular
passenger-ships running on schedule time. As a rule, travelers were com-
pelled to take their chances in getting ships, and usually took advantage of
the first one that happened to be going in their direction.
When Benedict Biscop (667) was desirous of visiting Rome for the
third time, he was obliged to wait for a convenient ship (Bede, Hist.
Abb. 3): ““Nec post longum adveniente nave mercatoria, desiderio
satisfecit.”” Fewer ships would have stopped at Lérins than at Mar-
seilles, for one thing.? The following illustrations from Gregory of
Tours may be given of the resort of ships to Marseilles and other
ports of Southern Gaul. He mentions (Hist. Fr., 4.43) the theft of
1 Cf. Friedlander, op. cit. 1.286-7, who adds: ‘“‘Pliny’s record voyages are at the rate of
140 sea-miles (161 statute miles] to twenty-four hours.” See also my ‘‘Beowulfian and Odys-
sean Voyages” (Trans. Conn. Acad. of Arts and Sciences 28.11, 14-5), where the figures
given are somewhat smaller. On Aug. 18, 1886, R. H. Dana (Two Years before the Mast,
chap. 84) was in a heavily laden sailing vessel which had covered more than 4000 miles in
27 days. Cf. Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 185-6.
? Gregory of Tours (Glor. Conf. 95) tells of a certain man who, being near Nice, came
upon a ship bound for Marseilles. He himself wished to stop at Lérins, but to this the owners
objected, until finally their resistance was overcome by means of a relic in his possession.
882 Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough
seventy casks of oil from a vessel recently landed at that port, and
tells the quarrelsome Bishop of Nantes that, if he were to obtain the
bishopric of Marseilles, he would import papyrus (presumably from
Egypt), instead of oil and spices, and so would be able to multiply
the number of his abusive epistles (5.5). Gondovald, returning from
Constantinople, lands at Marseilles (6.24); and Grippo, back from
an embassy to the Emperor Maurice, relates his experiences at an
African port (10.2). Certain envoys, sent to the Emperor Tiberius,
return after three years of absence and many hardships, but, not
being able to enter Marseilles because of its internal dissensions, sail
for Agde, about 100 miles distant, and are there shipwrecked, their
goods being plundered by the wreckers of the town (6.2). Agiulf,
a deacon of Tours, returning with relics from Rome, visits the tomb
of Bishop Nicetius of Lyons, and there refers to the waves of the
sea which he had traversed! (Gregory of Tours, Vita Patrum 8.8).
We hear of wine of Gaza in Gaul (7.29), and of roots grown in Egypt
being brought to Nice for the food of a certain hermit (6.6). Finally,
a deacon, sent from Anjou to Rome, stops at Nice on the way, and,
while there, requests that the hermit recommend him to certain
sailors of his acquaintance (6.6).
The limitation of the season for sailing must be borne in mind.
On this Mooney remarks (op. cit., p. 118):
Sea-traffic was almost completely stopped during a considerable part
of the year. The times for navigation were as follows: “The sea was closed
from the 10th of November to the 10th of March, but navigation was com-
pletely safe only between May the 26th and September the 14th.? There
were two doubtful periods, 11th of March-26th of May, and 15th of Sep-
tember—10th of November, when merchants might risk sailing.” . . . There
was not an absolute cessation of sea-traffic during the non-navigation
periods. Voyages were occasionally made at such times, particularly if
necessitated by stress of circumstances.
Considering the significance of the date, May 26, it is a striking fact
that the departure of Theodore and Hadrian from Rome took place
1 See also the anecdote on pp. 384-5, below.
2 Pope Gregory, writing on April 15, 595 (Reg. V. $1: 1.812), says that he has been in-
tending to dispatch Candidus to Southern Gaul, but that the winter season had thus far
prevented.
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 388
on the following day, May 27, following upon a delay of two months
after Theodore was ordained. Bede says (4.1):
He [Theodore] was ordained by Pope Vitalian, in the year of our Lord
668, on Sunday, the 26th of March; and, on the 27th of May [Saturday],
was sent with Hadrian to Britain. They proceeded together by sea to
Marseilles, and thence by land to Arles.
It must also be remembered that navigation in the Gulf of Genoa
was likely to be impeded by storms or violent winds (Encyc. Brit.,
11th ed. 4.475): “‘Southwesterly gales, blowing up the Gulf of
Genoa, cause large waves to roll into the bay, reaching a height
of about 21 ft. in the worst storms.” !
There are probably two alleviating circumstances in the trip by
sea, at least if passengers could sleep on board in comparative
comfort. First, they were not normally obliged to stop at night in
pleasant weather. Under the Empire, we are told (Friedlander
1.283): “‘Voyages were made by preference on clear starry nights.
The steersman steered by the stars.’”’ And then they were not
obliged to stop for supplies (Mooney, p. 132):
One may affirm that passengers on a ship had such food as was ordi-
narily eaten by the Romans. References show that vessels were provided
with wheat, barley, bread, wine, meats, pepper, and sailor’s biscuit... .
Ships were at times furnished with food cooked before they set sail. An
abundance of fresh water was kept in cisterns.
If the customary rules for navigation, as illustrated in the case
of Theodore and Hadrian, were observed by Augustine and his fol-
lowers, it results that, leaving Rome on May 27,? Augustine would
1 The Emperor Claudius was nearly drowned in A.p. 43 off the Iles d’Hyéres (Suetonius,
Claudius, chap. 17). Addison, setting out from Marseilles, sailed to San Remo, about 170
miles, and there was obliged to land by contrary winds. Thence making a fresh start for
Genoa, he reached the middle of the Gulf, where he was compelled to remain for two days,
being in imminent danger of shipwreck. His next stop was at Monaco, 20 miles further from
his destination than at San Remo. Finally, he tells us (Works, ed. Bohn 1.861): ‘Finding the
sea too rough, we were forced to make the best of our way by land, over very rugged mountains
and precipices.” It is true that this was in January, and the boat was a comparatively light one.
2 If Augustine, leaving Rome at this date, could have reached Kent with no untoward
delays, he might even then, in the time that remained before Christmas, have been rewarded
by the opportunity of converting the more than 10,000 persons whom he actually baptized on
Christmas Day of 597 (Reg. VIII. 29: 2.81; Haddan and Stubbs $8.12). It is perhaps only
a fancy that Gregory, remembering the baptism of more than 3000 Franks with Clovis (Greg.
884 Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough
have had 57 days before beginning his second voyage on July 23 —
supposing him to have sailed on the very date of Gregory’s letters.
If from the 57 we deduct the 24 postulated on p. 379, there will re-
main 33 for Augustine’s round trip from Rome to Marseilles. Per-
haps Gregory would have seen to it — considering the variety of
matters in which his word was authority in Rome — that arrange-
ments were made with shipmasters in advance of May 26, or prob-
ably several ships may have been awaiting the opening of the
season.
From what seaport would Augustine have sailed for Gaul? Not
from Ostia, as intimated by Dudden (above, p. 376), but from
Portus, distinctively the port of Rome at that period,! 15 miles from
the city, at the mouth of the Tiber. According to Procopius (Bell.
Goth. 1.26.4 ff.):
The Romans at the very beginning made a road leading from Portus
to Rome, which was smooth and presented no difficulty of any kind.2? And
many barges are always anchored in the harbor ready for service, and no
small number of oxen stand in readiness close by. Now when the merchants
reach the harbor with their ships, they unload their cargoes, and place them
in the barges, and sail by way of the Tiber to Rome. . . . They fasten ropes
from the barges to the necks of oxen, and so draw them just like wagons up
to Rome.
This road, Procopius states, was rather narrow for hauling goods in
wagons (op. cit. 2.7.6).
Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart. 82) relates, concerning a deacon
of his city, that, having received (a.p. 590) from Pope Pelagius IT,
Tur., Hist. Franc. 2.81; Kurth, Clovis, $d ed., 1.844, who remarks that Easter was the usual time
for baptism), just a hundred years earlier — at Christmas of 496 — may have conceived of
some such possibility in forming the outline of his plan (Gregory, in anticipation of the conver-
sion of England, had entered into relations with Candidus in September, 595 (Reg. VI. 10);
and in his letters of July 23, 596 to Protasius and Arigius (Reg. VI. 58 and 56), sent by
Augustine, he commends Candidus to them; cf. Dudden 2. 56, 99). It is doubtless a mere co-
incidence that Theodore of Tarsus, leaving Rome on May 27, 668, arrived at Canterbury
exactly a year later.
1 Cf. Encyc. Brit., 11th ed. 22.169: “the only harbor in the time of the Gothic wars.”
2 With respect to the Ostian road, Procopius has this to say (1.26.13): “ But on the other
side of the river, as one goes from the city of Ostia to Rome, the road is shut in by woods, and
in general lies neglected, and is not even near the bank of the Tiber.” And again (2.7.6):
“The road on the other side of it is altogether unused, at least that part of it which follows
the river-bank.”
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 385
the immediate predecessor of Gregory, a number of relics, he was,
on leaving for Portus, escorted by clergy intoning psalms, and by a
throng of the laity. The vessel, bound for Marseilles, was, after a
time, driven by a violent wind toward a dangerous point of rocks,
where it narrowly escaped shipwreck, but eventually reached its
haven in safety. |
2. Tue ITINERARY IN GAUL
Augustine’s itinerary in Gaul must be determined in the light of
the letters of recommendation addressed by Gregory to the influen-
tial functionaries through whose assistance alone he could hope to
reach his destination with safety and any degree of comfort. Three
such letters had been already delivered and honored! before
Augustine’s return to Rome — those to Stephen, Abbot of Lérins;
Protasius, Bishop of Aix; and Arigius, Governor of Provence. To
all three of these Gregory writes letters of thanks? on July 23,
596; but to only one of them does he direct solicitations of further
aid to his messenger (see above, p. 380). Augustine’s general course
was northward, along the Rhone valley and beyond; and even-
tually northwestward, so as to gain a port from which he could con-
veniently reach his destination in Britain.
Assuming that Augustine arrived at Marseilles by the middle of
August, and that he would be crossing the Channel to England
possibly as late as the middle of May (see p. 393, note 4), he would
have had something like nine months for his travels and sojourns in
Gaul. All writers on the subject are clear that,on leaving Marseilles,
he would have gone up the Rhone valley to Arles (Vergilius), Vienne?
1 Plummer is only willing to admit (edition of Bede, 2.87) that Augustine “got at any
rate far enough to hear news of, perhaps to have interviews with,” the three addressees; but
Ewald declares (on Reg. VI. 53: 1.428): “Ex hoc loco intelligi potest Augustinum cum sociis
jam Aquis fuisse, antequam Romam reversus sit.”
2 All given in Haddan and Stubbs 8.7-11; cf. Bright, p. 48.
3 Vienne, in particular, must have enjoyed at this time a reputation for books and learned
men. Claudianus Mamertus (d. ca. 474), who spent his life in the city as an assistant to his
brother the archbishop, also named Mamertus (Dict. Chr. Biog. 3.790-1; cf. Guizot, Hist. of
Civ. 1.898) is thus characterized in the epitaph by Sidonius, his contemporary (Ep. 4.11):
**In three fields of learning he was a master and a shining light — the Roman, the Greek, and
the Christian; all of them, as a monk in his prime, he made his own by secret discipline; he
was orator, logician, poet, commentator, geometer, musician.”’ An even more illustrious scholar,
886 Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough
(Desiderius), Lyons (Etherius), and Autun (Syagrius). If the com-
pany ascended the Rhone, it was probably on flatboats manned by
three to five boatmen. These craft took from two to five days to
go from Lyons to Avignon. Up-stream they were towed, five or six
at a time, by twenty to forty oxen or horses, and about as many
boatmen and drivers, advancing only seven or eight miles a day, so
that it took about a month to go from Arles to Lyons.’ If all the
journeys of the missionaries in Gaul were to be at any such rate as
this, it is easy to see that, with their pauses for entertainment at the
various courts and episcopal palaces, their time might with no great
difficulty be consumed.
For the interview with Theoderic of Burgundy and his grand-
mother, the redoubtable Brunhild, the authorities, partly because
Brunhild was so active, not to say restless, a person, are divided in
opinion between Chalon-sur-Saéne (Smith, Bright, and Dudden)
and Orléans (Dict. Chr. Biog. 4.924); for Theodebert II of Austrasia,
between Rheims (Bright) and Metz (Hughes, in Mason, op. cit.,
p-. 210); for Clotaire II, they pretty well agree upon Paris (Smith,
Bright, and Dudden), though Soissons was, at various periods, the
capital, and may have been so at this time.
Following Autun, Bnght supposes Augustine to have visited
Tours, where Pelagius was bishop.
After Augustine had been a few months in England, Gregory
Avitus, kinsman to Sidonius, and probably to the Emperor Avitus (Dict. Chr. Biog. 1.238-4;
Schanz, Gesch. der Rém. Litt. 8.4*. 380-9; Manitius, Gesch. der Chr.—Lat. Poesie, pp. 241-255),
was born not far from 450, became Bishop of Vienne by or before 491, and died probably in
518. He was distinguished for eloquence; among his homilies are two on the Rogations (cf.
below, p. 898; Greg. Tur., Hist. Fr. 2.34) — Homilia in Rogationibus, and Sermo Die I
Rogationum. His lasting fame is due chiefly to a Biblical epic in five books (2552 hexameters),
dealing with some of the most striking features of Genesis and Exodus, and published shortly
before 507. The poem has been analyzed at some length by Guizot (Hist. of Civ. 2.147-156),
who compares portions of the first three books with corresponding passages of Paradise Lost
(1.211-257: P. L. 4.946268; 2.60-117: P. L. 4.358-892; 8.96-112: P. L. 10.868-897). On
the relation between this poem of Avitus and the OE. Genesis, consult Sievers, Der Heliand
und dte Angelsdchsische Genesis (Halle, 1875), pp. 18-21. — When Benedict Biscop, a century
and a half after the death of Avitus, was returning from Rome to England in 672, he added
to the books which he had acquired in Rome a number which had been collected for him in
Vienne (Bede, Htst. Abb. 4): ‘“Rediens autem, ubi Viennam pervenit, empticios ibi quos apud
amicos commendaverat, recepit.”
1 Breittmayer, Le Rhdne (1904), pp. 4-5.
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 387
wrote to Brunhild, thanking her in these terms for her kindness to
him (Reg. VIII.4: 2.7):
Qualiter autem se excellentia vestra erga fratrem et coepiscopum nos-
trum Augustinum exhibuerit, quantamque illi sibi Deo aspirante caritatem
impenderit, diversorum fidelium relatione cognovimus.
As late as June 22, 601, when Laurentius the priest and Mellitus
the abbot were going to assist Augustine in England, Gregory again
commended her for the assistance she had rendered to Augustine, of
which he had heard from monks returning to Rome.
Gregory had evidently sent no letter in 596 to the boy-king,
Clotaire II, but with Laurentius and Mellitus he sent the following
(Reg. XI. 61: 2.323): |
Now certain monks {guidam], who had proceeded with our most reverend
brother and fellow-bishop Augustine to the nation of the Angli, have re-
turned and told us with what great charity your Excellence refreshed this
our brother when he was present with you, and with what supports you
aided him on his departure.
The only authority for a visit by Augustine to Angers is Gocelin,
who was a monk at Canterbury in 1098, and had originally come
from the monastery of St. Bertin (Dict. Nat. Biog. 22.253). His ac-
count is referred to by Smith (1722), in his edition of Bede’s Eccle-
siastical History (p. 680); by Bright (op. cit., p. 44, note 7); Dudden
(2.109); and Howorth (p. 36). It runs as follows (AA.SS. 19.377:
May, Vol. 6):
Agens sane Dominicam legationem, ut prenotatum est, a Roma in
Angliam, in Andegavensi Provincia Pontum Sai! nuncupatum, milliari
tractu super Ligerim fluvium lapideo opere productum, cum illo sancto
choro transiit sociorum. Quibus adjacenti villse Sai ejusdem nominis conan-
tibus sueeedere, incole hostilitatem pro hospitalitate restituere; et tot hom-
ines peregrinos, pedestri incessu et habitu humiles, quasi tot lupos et ignota
monstra repulere. At vero muliercule simul glomerate, tanta non modo
irreverentia, sed insania, ululatu, despectu, subsannatione, derisione in
Sanctos Dei sunt debacchate, ut viri indemnes vel innoxii, quodammodo
1 Cf. Baedeker, Northern France, 5th ed., p. 279: “Les Ponts-de-Cé [three miles S. of
Angers] . . . is built on three islands in the Loire, connected with each other and with the
bank on each side by means of four bridges. The total length of these bridges, together with
the roads between, is almost 2M. They ... are of very ancient origin, being the ‘Pons Saii’
of the Romans.”
888 Augustine’s Journey from Rome to Richborough
in eadem viderentur comparatione.' Nec suffecerat ejecisse, sed longius
inculcantes trahebant, impellebant, lacessebant, abigentes ludibriosa um-
portunitate. Stabat juxta ulmus ampla et umbrosa, lassis viatonbus ad
pausam accommoda: sub hac Sancti, volentes ipsa nocte requiescere, non
poterant a mulierum, velut tot canum, infestatione. Unam vero ceteris 1m-
pudentius Sancti vestigiis incumbentem, dum ipse elato baculo, velut ad
bestiam et rapidam lupam pugnans, conaretur abigere, subito baculus, novo
Dei gratis signo, de manu ejus velut ab arcu excussa sagitta evolavit. .. .
Since rivers were at this time the preferred arteries of travel in
Gaul,’ Augustine and his companions may have reached Orléans,
Tours, and Angers from Autun by way of the Loire, perhaps drop-
ping down the Arroux in small boats to Digoin — navigation on the
Loire already beginning at La Noirie (Encyc. Brit., 11th ed. 16.923,
where we read, however, “‘The Loire is navigable only in a very
limited sense”). Stopping at the Ponts-de-Cé, they would virtually
find themselves at Angers (66 miles from Tours).
Gregory sent no letter of recommendation by Augustine to Li-
cinius (592-605), fifteenth Bishop of Angers (Dict. Chr. Biog. 3.725),
though he, with six other bishops, was addressed in a circular letter
(Reg. X1.41: 2.314) by the Pope five years later, when Laurentius
and Mellitus were sent to England to assist Augustine.
If Augustine did indeed visit Angers, he may either have been
attracted by the fame of Albinus (St. Aubin), tenth bishop (530-550),
or have familiarized himself with the outlines of his biography while
there. The life of Albinus was written by Venantius Fortunatus
(Opera Pedestria, ed. Krusch, pp. 27-33), at the instance of Domitian,
the twelfth bishop, whom Fortunatus greatly admired; and a con-
densed sketch is givenin a note to Glor. Mart. 94 (Arndt and Krusch’s
edition of Gregory of Tours, p. 808). Albinus was born in or
1 According to the historian Seignobos (Liring Age, Aug. 28, 1926, p. 444), Anjou and
its sister-provinces, Brittany, Maine, and Poitou, ‘‘are pastoral and moorland districts,
with a sparse population, and without large cities or industrial centres. The peasants live
on scattered holdings as small tenants, isolated from the world, ignorant, poor, and con-
trolled by the landlords and the priests.”
2 Cf. Marignan, Etudes sur la Civilisation Francaise: La Socitté Mérovingienne, p. 141.
On traveling by land, Marignan says (p. 143): “Les routes, surtout celles qui avoisinaient
les nombreuses foréts qui couvraient alors la Gaule, étaient trés peu sfires, & cause des voleurs
& qui elles servaient de repaires, ce qui obligeait les voyageurs de partir accompagnés d’une
escorte.” Cf. p. 147.
Augustine’s Journey from Rome to Richborough 389
about 471 of noble parentage, a native of Venetice regionis oceano
Britannico confinis, by which we must understand the district lying
near Vannes, in Brittany. He became abbot of an unidentified mon-
astery, named Tincilliacen, at the age of 35, presided over it for 25
years, and over the see of Angers for 20 years and 6 months. Before
542 he made a visit to Arles to consult its bishop, Ceesarius, “‘cer-
tainly the first ecclesiastic in the Gaul of his own age” (Dict. Chr.
Biog. 1.376). He died in 550, in the 80th year of his age, and was
buried in St Peter’s of Angers, beyond the eastern gate of the city.
About half-a-dozen years after his death (that is, between 555
and 557), and therefore forty years before Augustine’s journey,
Bishop Germanus of Paris — the same who afterwards excommuni-
cated Charibert, father of Queen Bertha of Kent, for marrying the
second of two sisters, after repudiating his wife, Ingoberga, in favor
of the first sister (Hist. Franc. 4.26) — associated with Domitian,
a successor of Albinus, translated his remains to the church called
by his name, on the site now occupied by the Préfecture (Longnon,
Géographie de la Gaule au VI‘ Stécle, p. 301), adjoining the Tour St.
Aubin and the Rue St. Aubin. Fortunatus, the author of his life,
was, on one occasion, after visiting the abbey over which Albinus
had presided, carried off by Bishop Domitian to Angers, to a cele-
bration of the feast of St. Albinus (Fortunatus, Carm. 11.25.10: ad
sancti Albini gaudia festa trahens).
Since Albinus was born in the land of the Veneti, which was
eventually included in Brittany; since the immigrants from the
West of Britain were not certainly in possession of Vannes till 578
(Longnon, p. 171); and since we find Saxons on the banks of the
Loire, and arriving at Angers as early as 463 (Longnon, p. 173); one
is tempted to conjecture that Albinus may have been a Saxon, rather
than an ancient Armorican or of the invading race of Bretons, al-
though these Saxons were not regularly converted to Christianity
before the episcopate of Felix of Nantes (550-583), for Fortunatus
writes to him:
Aspera gens Saxo vivens quasi more ferino,
Te medicante sacer, bellua reddit ovem.!
1 Cf. Longnon, pp. 172-4.
390 8 =«Augustine’s Journey from Rome to Richborough
In that case, one conceives it possible that Augustine, already
impressed with the virtues of Albinus, may have taken it as an omen
of the future faith of the people to whom he had been sent that the
bishop was a member of the same race. If this were so, it might ac-
count, through the tradition at Canterbury of Augustine’s feeling,
for the name of the abbot who gave so much assistance to Bede in
the composition of his Ecclesiastical History (Preface; 5.20), and
possibly for that by which Alcuin was sometimes known. There
were no distinguished men of this name in earlier ecclesiastical his-
tory, nor indeed after the various conspicuous Romans of the Postu-
mia gens.
Toward Boulogne or its neighborhood, Augustine may have trav-
eled either by boat down the Seine, which would have been controlled
from 594 by Clotaire, or by the road (Friedlander, Roman Life and
Manners 1.275):
The great road to Britain! went by Rheims, Soissons, Amiens, to Bou-
logne (Portus Gesoriacum), and the crossing was to Richborough (Rutu-
pise), lasting eight or nine hours for the 450 stadia.
38. From GavuL To KENT
Bede, at the beginning of his Ecclestasctial History, quotes Orosius
(1.2) and Pliny (4.30) to this effect, speaking of Belgic Gaul: “‘To
its nearest shore there is an easy passage from the city of Rutubi?
Portus, by the English now corrupted into Reptacestir. The dis-
tance from here across the sea to Gessoriacum ® is fifty miles [46
English miles ‘], or, as some writers say, 450 furlongs [about 52 Eng-
lish miles].”’ Bede, writing about 731, is evidently recognizing these
ports as those which were habitually employed for centuries in inter-
course between Gaul and Britain; we may compare Mayor’s note on
Juvenal 4.141;
The ordinary route to England was from Bononia (Boulogne) to Rutu-
pis: (Richborough) on the opposite coast. . . . Recent excavations have
brought to light the remains of many Roman buildings at Richborough.°®
1 See Murray’s Handy Classical Maps: Gallia. 2 Better, Rutuyie.
3 Also spelled Gesoriacum; afterwards known as Bononta.
4 This is not far from correct. & Cf. Scarth, Roman Britain, pp. 108, 154 ff.
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 391
Ammianus Marcellinus (27.8.6) thus touches on a crossing in
A.D. 368: |
He reached the coast of Boulogne, which is separated from the opposite
coast by a very narrow strait of the sea, which there rises and falls in a
strange manner, being raised by violent tides, and then again sinking to a
perfect level,! like a plain, without doing any injury to the sailors. From
Boulogne he crossed the strait in a leisurely manner, and reached Rich-
borough, a very tranquil station on the opposite coast.?
Notwithstanding the testimonies to the regular navigation be-
tween Richborough and Boulogne, it is clear that, at least between
669 and 718, Etaples was preferred to Boulogne in certain instances.
Thus Boniface and his companions, sailing from London in 718,
“with a stiff breeze and a lucky voyage, luckily sighted the mouth
of the river called Cuent [the Canche], and were now safe from all
danger of shipwreck. They came safe to dry land; but they pitched
camp at Cuentawich.” ®
Concerning Channel boats suitable for the transportation, besides
captain and crew, of such a number of passengers, we have very little
direct or exact information,‘ but we are told that, for Gaul in general,
the vessels were such as were employed under the Empire (Marignan,
p. 142): “Le commerce employait les embarcations du temps de
"Empire, comme le prouvent les termes employés par Grégoire de
Tours et Fortunat [examples follow]. . . . Il en fut de méme pour les
moyens de transports créés par Rome.” With this hint, we may
consider what Cesar (Bell. Gall. 3.13) says of the ships ® of the
Veneti (Southern Brittany):
1 Cf. Hughes, in Mason, op. cit., p. 215.
2 See also Amm. Marc. 20.1.8; Dio Cassius 39.50; Eutropius, Brev. 9.21; Aurelius Victor,
Ces., chap. 82; Sozomen 9.11; Dyer, in Dict. Gr. and Roman Geog. 2.860-1; Pauly, Realen-
cyclopddie 3.7038; 7.1828; Zweite Reihe 1.1284; Desjardins, Géog. de la Gaule 1.862, 372 ff.
* Cf. my paper on the Andreas (Trans. Conn. Acad. of Arts and Sciences 26.278). My
note on the passage is as follows: ‘The modern Etaples, some 20 miles south of Boulogne;
on the southern side of the stream was the monastery of St. Josse-sur-Mer. It was at Etaples
that Archbishop Theodore, after a period of illness, sailed over to Kent (Bede, Eccl. Hist. 4.1).
It was there also that Wilfrith’s enemies expected him to land when he left England in 678,
bound for Rome, and laid their plots accordingly.”
‘ Various possibilities are discussed by Hughes (Mason, op. cit., pp. 211 ff.).
5 Perhaps it is on the following passages that Dudden (2.109) rests when he speaks of
“the flat-bottomed wooden boats.”’
392 Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough
The keels were somewhat flatter than those of our ships, whereby they
could more easily encounter the shallows and the ebbing of the tide; the
prows were raised very high, and in like manner the sterns were adapted to
the force of the waves and storms. The ships were built wholly of oak, and
designed to endure any force and violence whatever; the benches, which
were made of planks a foot in breadth, were fastened by iron spikes of the
thickness of a man’s thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains,
instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather.
This may be supplemented by Strabo 4.4.1 (195):
On account of the violence of the winds, the sails were made of leather,
and they were hoisted by chains instead of ropes. Because of the ebb-tides,
they make their ships with broad bottoms, high sterns, and high prows;
they make them of oak (of which they have a plentiful supply), and this is
why they do not bring the joints of the planks together, but leave gaps;
they stuff the gaps full of sea-weed, however, so that the wood may not,
for lack of moisture, become dry when the ships are hauled up, because the
sea-weed is naturally rather moist, whereas the oak is dry and without fat.
4. AUGUSTINE'S GATHERINGS FROM GAUL
One of the observations which Augustine made in Gaul related to
the differences between the Gallic and the Roman ritual. Having
been consecrated by the Archbishop of Arles before Christmas, 597,
Augustine sent Laurentius the priest and Peter the monk to Rome,
perhaps in the spring of 598 (Bright, p. 55), partly to obtain from
Gregory replies to certain puzzling questions which Augustine ad-
dressed to him. In June, 601, Gregory sent the answers, the most
important for our purpose being that to the second question, which
is thus translated by Bright (p. 56): “Why, seeing that the faith is
one, are there different customs in different Churches, and one cus-
tom of masses in the holy Roman Church, another in that of Gaul?”’
On this Bright comments: ‘In Southern and Central Gaul he had
noticed the number of collects in the mass, the numerous variations
of the Preface, the Invocation of the Holy Spirit on the elements, the
solemn episcopal blessing pronounced after the breaking of the bread,
and before ‘the Peace’ and the Communion.”’ Gregory replied as
follows: !
1 Bede 1.27, tr. Sellar.
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 393
My will is that, if you have found anything either in the Roman, or the
Gallican, or any other Cburch, which may be more acceptable to Almighty
God, you should carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach
the Church of the English, which as yet is new in the faith, whatsoever you
can gather from the several Churches. For things are not to be loved for
the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore,
from every Church those things that are pious, religious, and right, and
when you have, as it were, made them up into one bundle, let the minds
of the English be accustomed thereto.
One form of prayer which was not yet in use at Rome was the
litany sung by the missionaries as they drew near to Canterbury: !
““We beseech thee, O Lord, for thy great. mercy, that thy wrath and
anger be turned away from this city, and from thy holy house.?
Alleluia.” * Bright (p. 48) speaks of the brethren as having “‘prob-
ably heard” the litany “in the previous spring, on their arrival in
Provence.” As the litany was sung in the Rogation services preceding
Ascension Day,‘ Bright (p. 48) comments as follows:
The institution of Rogations, or processional supplications in time of
distress, had been invested with new solemnity by Mamertus ° of Vienne
before the Ascension-day of 468; see Greg. Turon. H. Fr. ii. 84.6 Thence
the observance spread. Augustine would have heard how St. Cesarius had
recommended it; and he made it an institution in the English Church
(Council of Clovesho).?
1 Bede 1.25.
2 Based on Dan. 9.16. Cf. the form in the tenth-century Durham Ritual (pp. 10, 11),
which has justitta (Vulg. justitiam), for misericordiam, and monte (with the Vulgate and Versio
Antiqua), for the domo of the litany.
* Cf. Wilson, in Mason, op. ctt., p. 237, note 1: ‘““The use of Alleluia was not in early
times confined to festival days; but it may be remarked that it forms the regular conclusion
of the anthems in the Rogation litanies extracted by Marténe from French service-books.”
4 Is it possible that, on this first occasion in England, the litany was actually sung on
a Rogation day? Modern writers, without alleging any authority, say that Augustine crossed
the Channel “towards the end of April” (Dudden 2.109) or “‘soon after Easter” (Bright, p.
44). The three Rogation days would have been May 20, 21, and 22. See Bright (p. 50) on
the date of Zthelbert’s baptism.
5 Cf. Encyc. Brit. 11th ed. 17.416: ‘*A description of the institution and character of the
Ascensiontide rogations is given by Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. 5.14). “The solemnity of these,’
he says, ‘was first established by Mamertus. Hitherto they had been erratic, lukewarm, and
poorly attended (rage, tepentes, infrequentesque); those which he instituted were characterized
by fasting, prayers, psalms, and tears.’ ”’
* This is a graphic account.
7 See Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit. 3.868, who give the decree of the Council (a.p. 747),
894 Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough
A fuller account is this by Wilson (Mason, op. cit., pp. 236-7) :
Litanies, of course, were not unknown to them in Rome... . But the
use of such litanies in the three days preceding Ascension Day was not of
Roman origin. It was not until the time of Leo III (795-816) that the
“Rogation”’ litanies were established at Rome. In Gaul, at the time of
St. Augustine’s mission, they were already generally observed. They are
said to have had their beginning at Vienne,’ about the year 470; their general
adoption was ordered by the Council of Orleans in 511; and in 567 a council
held at Lyons had provided that similar litanies should be used also in the
week preceding the first Sunday of November. It is therefore likely that
St. Augustine and his companions had witnessed, or had taken part in, these
processions more than once during the time which had passed since they
first set out from Rome. The anthem which Bede has preserved for us
certainly appears in one of the Rogation litanies in use long afterwards at
Vienne, and probably in other churches of France. It may be that the
Gallican custom of Rogation processions, which we find established in Eng-
land as an ancient usage at a time when it was still unrecognized at Rome,
was first brought into England by the Roman Mission.
The enactment of the first legal code in England is thus described
by Bede (Eccl. Hist. 2.5), in his obituary account of King Athel-
bert of Kent:
Among other benefits which he conferred upon his nation in his care for
them, he established, with the help of his council of wise men, judicial deci-
sions after the Roman model, which are written in the language of the
English, and are still kept and observed by them. Among which he set
down first what satisfaction should be given by any one who should steal
anything belonging to the Church, the bishop, or the other clergy, for he
was resolved to give protection to those whom he had received along with
their doctrine.?
These laws, then, were codified, as the Romans codified theirs;
they were promulgated in English, not in Latin; and they were still
prescribing the Rogations “‘secundum morem priorum nostrorum,” and directing that the
faithful shall not follow the majority by engaging “‘in ludis, et equorum curstbus, et epulis
majoribus.”
1 For Vienne, cf. above, p. 885. |
2 Qui inter cetera bona que genti sus consulendo conferebat, etiam decreta illi judictorum
juxta exempla Romanorum, cum consilio sapientium constituit; que conscripta Anglorum
sermone hactenus habeatur, et observantur ab ea. In quibus primitus posuit qualiter id emen-
dare deberet qui aliquid rerum vel ecclesise, vel episcopi, vel reliquarum ordinum furto aufer-
ret; volens scilicet tuitionem eis duos et quorum doctrinam susceperat preestare.
——. @— __
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Rachborough 395
observed when Bede wrote, a century and a quarter after. The Eng-
lish in which they were written down is still extant, though in a late
copy, in which the spelling has no doubt undergone changes here
and there; and a new edition of them, with a modern translation,
was published as recently as 1922.! This code not only constitutes
the earliest document of any sort written in the English language,
but is in contrast with all the earlier Germanic codes on the Con-
tinent, which were written in Latin.? According to Liebermann,’ the
date of Athelbert’s laws is a.p. 602-3 (op. cit. 3.2).
It being premised that Xthelbert’s laws consist of a list of fines
to be imposed for a series of specified offenses, and that the statutes
are expressed as briefly as possible, three of these in order, from the
beginning of the collection, are here subjoined: ‘
1. Godes feoh ond ciricean,’ XII gylde. Bisceopes feoh, XI gylde. Préostes
feoh, IX gylde. Diacones feoh, VI gylde. Cleroces feoh, III gylde. . . .
4. Gf frigman cyninge stele, IX gylde forgylde.
9. Gif frigman fréum stele, ITI gebéte. . . .
Three words in the first law are specially to be noted — ciricean,
bisceopes, and préostes, or, in the nominative, ctrice, bisceop (biscop),
and préost. These words, like dzacon and cleroc, are Greek in origin.
1 Attenborough, The Laws of the Earliest English Kings, pp. 4-16.
2 Liebermann, the standard authority on the Old English laws, gives two reasons (Die
Gesetze der Angelsachsen 3.2) for believing that no part of this code had been written down
on the Continent — namely, (1) that the Germanic runes, the only written characters that the
Germans possessed, were employed only for brief inscriptions, and (2) that we hear nothing
of any sort of manuscript produced by the Anglo-Saxons on the Continent, all that they-
deemed most worthy of retention in mind — such as legends and royal genealogies — being
transmitted orally, often in verse. On the Continental codes, see Gibbon, ed. Bury 4.122 ff.
3 Cf. Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law 1.11.27.
4 Attenborough’s translation:
1. [Theft of] God’s property and the Church’s shall be compensated twelvefold; a bishop’s
property, elevenfold; a priest’s property, ninefold; a deacon’s property, sixfold; a clerk’s
property, threefold ....
4. If a freeman robs the king, he shall pay back a ninefold amount.
9. If a freeman robs a freeman, he shall pay a threefold compensation.
§ Six centuries later, King John of England thus provided for the liberty of the Church
in the first chapter of Magna Carta (Stubbs, Selected Charters, 8th ed., p. 296): “In primis
concessisse Deo et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse, pro nobis et heeredibus nostris in
perpetuum, quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit, et habent jura sua integra, et libertates suas
illeesas.” Here the sense is rather that of NED. II. 6.
896 Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough
Cirice, from which modern church is derived, comes ultimately from
the Greek xvptaxév, “‘of the Lord,” which occurs from the third
century on as a noun, “house of the Lord,” the sense in which it is
employed here (cf. the quotation from the Laws of Wihired’ given
in the NED. under Church 1.1: “‘A building for public Christian
worship.”) The article in the NED. deserves careful study through-
out, but we must restrict ourselves to the following quotation from
it:
We do not know the actual circumstances in which this less usual
Greek name became so well known to all the Germanic tribes as to become
practically the native name; . . . this too at so early a date as to be brought
to Britain (with many words expressing the outward apparatus of Chris-
tianity) by the heathen Angles and Saxons. . . . The Angles and Saxons had
seen and sacked Roman and British churches in Gaul and Britain for cen-
turies before they had them of their own, and, we have every reason to
believe, had known and spoken of them as cirican during the whole of that
period.
Since the word must also have been familiar to the Franks in Gaul,
it might be suggested, as an alternative, that Augustine had heard it
while there, or that the interpreters with him might have suggested
it when the need arose, since one does not quite see what form
an Old English adaptation of the Latin ecclesia would have assumed.
As to bisc(e)op, it is impossible to assume that this came directly
from the Latin episcopus, because of the initial e, and the following p,
of the latter. Opinion seems to incline to a Romanic *biscopo (cf.
Ita]. vescovo) as the direct etymon, though a Vulgar Latin (e)biscopus
has been suggested as an alternative (NED.).
Neither can préost have come directly from presbyter, but rather
from Romanic *prester (cf. Fr. prétre, Sp. preste; Ger. Priester); so
NED.
These two words, bisc(e)op and préost, must, then, at the very
beginning of English linguistic history, have entered the language,
not directly from literary Latin, but from Latin as it had become
modified by passing through the mouth of the common people,
ignorant or careless of the traditionally correct forms. At this point
1 Attenborough, p. 24.
Augustine's Journey from Rome to Richborough 397
it may be instructive to compare Gaston Paris, La Littérature Fran-
caise au Moyen Age, 3d ed., pp. 18, 14):!
Il est remarquable que la plupart des mots frangais relatifs aux enseigne-
ments de la religion ont une forme qui n’est pas populaire, c’est-a-dire
° ° ° ° e y
qu’ils ne paraissent point avoir, dés ]’époque romaine, passé par la bocuhe
du peuple: tels sont les représentants des mots latins mrgo, spiritus, trinitas,
apostolus, epistola, etc. [I] n’en est pas de méme des mots qui expriment
les pratiques les plus ordinaires du culte, comme missa, baptismus, jeyunare,
ou les degrés principaux de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique, comme presbyter,
monachus, abbas, episcopus (mais papa et son synonyme apostolicus n’ont
donné que des mcts savants).
1 Pfister, in Lavisse, Hist. de France 21.242, saya of Paris that he has “indiqué avec beau-
coup de justesse les traits dominants de cette religion populaire.” Cf. Marignan, op. cit., p.
246: ‘“‘Les masses populaires qui devinrent chrétiennes ont ramené a leur niveau des doctrines
qu’elles n’avaient point créés, et qui leur furent méme imposées par |’aristocratie urbaine.
Les différentes créations du christianisme — épiscopat, monastére, culte — recurent .. . une
empreinte plus personelle et nationale.”
YaLe UNIvERsITY.
THE POEMS ASCRIBED TO KING ENZIO
Br HERMANN H. THORNTON
N AN earlier article ! there has been published the text of the four
poems ascribed in the MSS to Frederick IT and “‘Rex Fredericus,”
together with a brief statement of the method of text-construction
followed. Herewith are published the three poems and the fragment
ascribed to King Enzio, Frederick’s son (1225-1272). A final article
will deal with the question of authorship in the poems of both groups.
i. Amor mi fa sovente
lo meo core penare,
dami pene e sospiri;
e son forte temente
per lungo adimorare 5
cio ke poria aveniri.
Non k’agia dubitanca
ka la dolce speranga
inver di me fallanca ne facesse;
ma mi tene in dottanca 10
Ja lunga ’dimoranca
e cio k’adivenire ne potesse.
1. Amor]V Amore 2. core]Chchor V?cor penare]V,P,Ch,V*pensare 3. dami]
LR, Ch, V2 dammi__sospiri] V sospire 4. son] V sono forte] Chfor 6. lungo adi-
morare] LR lungadimorare 6. aveniri] V, P avenire Ch adivenire V*? venire 7. agia]
V agio 8. ka] V,V%che LRde_ 9. inver]ZRche’n ne]V mi 10. mi tene] V,
V? mi tiene LRtenemi’n 12. e]Va LRdi cio] LRcioe adivenire] V divenire LR
venire ne] V nom P, Ch, V? mi
1 Speculum, 1 (1926), 87-100.
398
The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio 399
li. Pero ’nd’ agio paura
e penso tuctavia
a lo su gran valore. 15
Se troppo é mia dimora
eo viver no poria,
cosi mi stringe Amore.
Ed ami cosi priso
lo su bel chiaro viso 20
ke in altra parte non 6 pensamento;
ma tuttor m’é aviso,
ch’eo.ne son conquiso
e tengnolomi in gran confortamento.
iii. Conforto e non 6 bene; 25
tant’ é lo meo penare
k’io gio’ nom posso avire.
Speranca mi mantene
e fami confortare,
ché spero tosto gire 30
la ’v’ é la piu avenente,
l’amorosa piagente,
quella ke m’ave e tene in sua bailia.
Non falsero niente
per altra, al meo vivente, 35
k’io la terro per donna in vita mia.
18. ’nd’] V, LR, Ch, V?n’ 14. a])LRdi V* lacking su] V,P,V?suo 17. eo viver]
V jovivere LRvenire ChEovivere 19. Ed] P,LR,ChE V%e_ priso] P, Ch, V2 preso
20. V, P, V? in tale guisa conquiso Ch in tal guisa conquiso 21. ma] ZRE_ tuttor] V
tutora P, V2 tuctora Chtuttora aviso] P, Ch viso 8. V di vedere lo bello viso P, Ch,
V2 di veder lo bel viso 24. e tengnolomi] LR ch’el mi terrea 25. V Komforttomi neno-
nagio bene P, Ch, V? Confortomi e non agio bene 26. penare] V penssare LR pensare
27. k’io] LR che V2 ke’ gio’] V, V? gioia LR gioi avire] V, P, Ch avere V? havere
28. Speranca] V, LR isperanza 29. fami] Ch, V?fammi LR fanmi 930. ché] V ch’io
P, Ch, V?e_ gire] P, Ch, V2 a gire 381. ’v']V,V? ov’ 932. piagente] Ch piacenta
$4. falsero] LR falseria niente] V? mente (?) 85. altra] Ch altro 36. V ch’io la
volglio tutora per donna mia LR ma tuttor la terro per donna mia
400 The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio
iv. Ancora ch’io dimore
lungo tenpo, e non veia
la sua chiarita spera
e lo su gran valore, 40
ispesso mi verria
ch’ 1’ penso ogne manera
che llei deggia piacere;
e sono al suo volere
istato, e sero sensa fallanza. 45
Ben voi fare a savere
c’amare e non vedere
si mette fin amore inn obbrianza.
v. Va, Cansonetta mia,
e saluta messere; 50
dilli lo mal ch’eo aggio.
Quelli che m’a ’n bailia
si distretto mi tene
ch’eo viver non poraggio.
Salutami Toscana, 55
quella ched é sovrana,
in ciiil regna tutta cortesia;
e vanne in Pugla piana,
la magna Capitana,
la dov’ é lo mio core nott’-e dia. 60
87. Stanzas iv and v are giren only in LR 41. verria] MS venia 51. ch’eo aggio]
MS ch’aggio
The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio 401
Il
i. S’eo trovasse Pietanca
in carnata figura,
merze li kereria,
k’a lo meo male desse allegiamento;
e ben faria ’cordanca 5
infra la mente pura,
ké ’] pregar mi varria
vedendo lo meo umil gecchimento.
Che dico, Oi me lasso!
spero in trovar Merzede? 10
Certo ’] meo kor nol crede;
k’eo sono isventurato
piu d’omo innamorato:
sd che per me Pieta verria crudele.
i. Crudele e dispietata 15
seria per me Pietate,
e contra sua natura
secondo cio ke mostra ’] meo distino;
e Merzede adirata,
piena d’inpietate, 20
Deo, ch’ e’ 6 tal ventura.
ca pur diservo a cui servir non fino!
2. in carnata] V, Ch, V2 dincarnata $8. merze] LR mersede V?2e merze li] V, P, Ch,
V2 le kereria]V chederia LR chierrea 6. ben]V bene faria]V,Chfaccio 7. ké’l)
V ch’al Pke LRse’l pregar)V pregare mi]V meo Chme_ 8. vedendo] V vegiendo
Ch, V2 veggiendo lo meo umil] V l’umile meo P,Chlo meohumile V? il meo humile
gecchimento] V agiechimento Pagekimento Ch agiecchimento V? agecchimento 9. Che
dico] PE dicio LREdico V?edicho oimelasso!] Poilasso V? lasso me 10. tro-
var]Vtrovare 11. ’]meokor] Vilmiocore Pmeocor nol] P,Ch,V?non 12. k’eo]
LRsi__isventurato]V?sventurato 14. sdche] P sol 15. dispietata] V, P, Ch, V? spie-
tata 16. seria] P, V2 verria 17. e contra] V encontroa Chencontra V?e contro
-18. secondo] LR segonda_ mostra ’1] LR mossa Ch | mostra il V? dimostra i] 19. P, V3
Merce adirata_ adirata] LR ariata 20. d’inpietate] Ch d enpitate 21. Deo] P, V?
Odeo LRio ch’e'6])V chee P,LR,V?co 2%. ca} P,V*k’eo LR,Chche acuilV,Ch
laove V?2ove _ servir] V servire
402 The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio
Per meo servir non vio
ke gio’ mi sin acresca;
anci mi si rinfresca 25
pena e doglosa morte
ciascun giorno piu forte:
und’ eo morir sento lo meo sanare.
iii. Ecc’ ho pena doglosa,
ke ’nfra lo cor m’abonda 30
e sparge per li menbra
si k’a cclascun ne ven soverkia parte;
giorno non 6 di posa,
come nel mare I|’onda.
Kore, ke non ti smenbri! 35
esci di pene e dal corpo ti parte.
K’assai val meglio un’ ora
morir, ca pur penare:
ché nom po’ mai canpare
omo ke vive ’n pene; 40
né gaugio nol s’avene,
né pensamento a, che di ben s’aprenda.
23. Per} P Del servir] V, Ch servire vio] V vegio LR veio Ch, V® veggio
%. gio’] V, Ch, V? gioia LR gioi misin]V men LR nessuna Ch misene V? mi sen
25. anci]V, Ch nanti misi] ZR sipur rinfresca] Ch n’enfresca 26. pena] P, LR pene
27. ciascun] V ciaschuno 28. und’) V ond Plaund V?land_ morir sento] V morire
sento P sento perir Ch morir sent V* sento finir 29. Ecc’ ho] V Eco 380. ’nfra lo
cor]V nel miocore Chnelocor V?nelcor m’abonda]V abonda $31. sparge] ZR spande
li menbri] P, V2le menbra $2. cciascun] V ciaschuno P,Chciascuno ven]V viene P
vene soverkia}] P soperkia 88. giorno non 6] V nonn o giorno LR Nullo giorno
34. come nel mare] P si comel mare e LR sennon comel mare V? Sicchome nel mar
$5. Kore] LR cor meo’- smenbri] P, V?smenbra 36. esci] LR, V2 escie pene] V, Ch,
V2 pena parte] Ch diparti 37. K’assai] V, Ch Molto’ val] V vale 38. morir] V,
Ch, V? morire ca] P,V*ke LR,Chche pur)]V pura’ 39. ché] Pk’eo LRdache Ch
poi V?dake po’ mai]P poria LR puoi V*po canpare] ZRscanpare 41. né gaugio] P
eda gio Chnegiocho V?eda gioia nol s’'avene}] P, V? non savene LR nullo ivene Ch
nol sovene 4%. pensamento 4 che di] P apensamento ka di LR pensamentan che di V* a
pensamento dika ben]V bene s’aprenda ] V? saprende
The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio 403
iv. Tutti quei pensamenti
che mei spirti divisa
sono pene e dolore 45
sanza ‘llegrar, che nol li s'acompangna;
ed in tanti tormenti
abomdo en mala guisa,
che ’] natural colore
tutto perdo, si ’] cor isbatte e langna. 50
Or si po’ dir da manti:
““Che é ccio? Perche no more,
poi c’a ‘nsangnato il core?”
Rispondo: “Chi lo ’msangna
in quel momento stangna, 55
nom per meo ben, ma prova sua vertute.”
v. La vertute ch’ill ave
da uccider me e guarire,
a llingua dir nol |’auso,
per gran temenza c’agio no la sdingni; 60
ond’ io prego soave
Pieta, che mova a gire
e faccia il lei riposo;
e Merzede umilmente se gli alingni,
si che sia pietosa 65
di me, che non m’é noia
morir, s’ella n’a gioia;
ché sol viver mi place
per suo servir verace,
e non per altro gioco che m’avengna. 70
48. Stanzas iv and v are lacking in P, LR and V? quei] V quelli 44. che] V ca mei
spirti] V spiriti mei Ch mie spiriti 45. sono]Chson 46. nolli]V nol gli 47. ed in]
Ve ChEn _ 49. natural] V natura il 50. perdo]V perde§ si]V,Chtanto cor|V
core isbatte] Chsisbatte 51. Orsipo’]V Esepuoi dir] V,Chdire 652. Perche no]
Ch che non si 53. Ch poichesangnatoalcor 654. Rispondo]Chresponde ’msangna]
V sangna 65. in)Chen quel]V quello 66. ben]V bene prova]V broba 57. ill]
Vil 68. uccider]V ancider guarire]V guerire 59. llingua]V lingua’ dir] V, Ch dire
nol]V non 60. la sdingni] Ch losdengni 61. ond’ io]V onde 63. faccia] V facciavi
il]Chin 64. Merzede]Ch merce umilmente]V umile mente 66. di]Chver 67. mo-
rir]MS morire 68. sol viver] V solo vita mi]Ckme_ place]V piacie 69. suo servir]
V lei servire 70. gioco] V servire m’avengna] Ch me n avengna
404 The Poems Ascribed to King Enzo
iil
Tempo vene ki sale e ki discende.
tempo é da parlare e da ttacere,
tempo é d’ascoltare e da imprende,
tempo di molte cose provedere;
tempo é d’ubbidir ki tti riprende, §
tempo é di minaccie non temere;
tempo é di vegghiare ki tt’offende,
tempo d’infingnere di non vedere.
Pero lo tengno saggio e canoscente
culuy ke ffa sui facti cum ragione, 10
e che col tempo si sa comportare
e mettesi 1m piacere de la gente,
ke non si trovi nessuna cagione
ke lo su facto possa biasimare.
1. vene]VBven ki-ki]VBche-che discende]VBsendere 2. tempoéda]VBe
tempoe Ckhtempo daparlare]VBparlar dattacere]VBtacere V*taciere 3. tempo é]
VBetempo Chtempoda imprende]VB,Chimprendere 4. Lines 4 and 6 are inverted tn
ChandV? tempodi]VBetempoda _ 5. Lines 5and7areinvertedinVB VB e tempo
e d’ubedir e reprendere = tempo é d’ubbidire] Ch tempo d’ubbidire VV? tempo d’ibbidir
6. tempo é di] VBe tempo da Chtempodi V? tempo da minaccie] VB menaze 7. VBe
tempo eda venzaredofendere tempoédi]Ch,V*tempodi_ tt’offende]Cht’affende 8. tem-
po d’infignere di] VBetempoed’infinzer 9. saggio]VBsazo canoscente] V B conoscente
10. culuy ke ffa sui] Ch que cheffai V?quekei 11. echecol]Chechol V?ecol 12%. e
mettesi im ]V Be chise mette ne] _piacere]V B placer V? piacier 18. nessuna] VB alcunsa
14. VB che sol d’un fato se possa blasmare possa]Chposso su] Ch suo
IV
Allegru cori, plenu
di tutta beninanza
suvvegnavi s’eu penu
per vostra inamuranza.
Ch’il nu vi sia in placiri
di lassarmi muriri — talimenti
ch’iu v’amo di buon cori e lialmenti.
The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio 405
NOTES!
Porm I: AMOR MI FA SOVENTE
MSS: V 84 (Lo re Enzo); ZR 64 (Rex Enso); P 15 (Rex Hentius);
Ch 229, Ma 39, V? 9, UB 44b, B (Codex Bartoliniano) 271 (Re Enzo).
Basic MS: For stanzas i-iii, MS P; for stanzas iv and v, MS ZR. The
choice of MS P as basic MS for the first three stanzas of this poem is ac-
counted for by the following facts: (1) It is one of the two oldest MSS
represented; (2) its readings for this poem are in general reliable; (S$) its
orthography is consistently archaic, as evidenced by the prevalence of
such forms as the following: dami, fami; sosyir; ka; dolce; tene, mantene;
doctanca; Pero ’nd’ agio; tuctora; tegnolomi; lo meo penare; La ’ve; pracente
(LR piagente). The last two stanzas occur only in LR.
Editions: Valeriani I, 168; Nannucci, 64; Monaci, 202; Torraca,
Manuale I, 83.
Orthographical Note: MS V spells fortte, pensso; anza for ancga. ER
spells vizo, prizo, avizo, conquizo; ansa (sometimes) for anga, anza (some-
times) for anca.
Metrical Scheme: 12 lines, 6 + 6; 42-+-50 iy oe ee oa
5 stanzas (as in LR). Commiato.
General note. Referring to the Commiato stanza of this poem, Bertoni
(Duecento, 65) says: “ Versi pensosi e tristi, povero Re! Scritti forse quando
gli giungeva a Bologna |’eco delle disfatte della sua causa: la morte di
Manfredi a Benevento o !’irreparabile caduta di Corradino a Tagliacozzo.”
Gaspary (Dichterschule, 91): ‘‘ Viele andere Gedichte, wie das Kénig Enzo’s
. zeigen wie gewohnlich die triviale Wiederholung typischer Ideen und
Formeln.”’ The attributions in the case of this poem are the most depend-
able of all. Here at least we are on firm ground, since there is unanimity
among all of the MSS which contain the poem, including the three oldest
(LR, P, and V).
8. LR preserves the Meridional (C) rime; P changes to avenire; V Tuscan-
izes both forms. Cf. Sanesi.
19-24. In the reading of this passage, somewhat confused in P and V, we
have followed the version of ZR, which is, on the whole, the most satis-
factory.
25. A difficult line, seemingly not understood by the scribes of P and V.
Conforto = mi conforto (Nannucci). The meaning is probably: “I
(try to) comfort myself, yet I find no ease.”
1 For explanation of symbols, abbreviations, and references found in these notes, cf.
Speculum, I (1926), 95, Note 1.
406 The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio
36. The perhaps slightly preferable reading of P is sustained by both Ch
and V 2,
$7. Although dimore is a bona-fide Old Italian form for dimorz, the mme
is doubtless to be restored on a Meridional basis: dimurt: valurt.
46-48. A realistic touch rather tellingly expressed.
49. Torraca (Studi, 178): ““E quando, gia rassegnato a non ripassare il
ponte del Reno mai pid, a coloro, che sapevano l’irremovibile volonta
dei reggitori del comune, il giovane re biondo e bello ripeteva, ‘Va,
canzonetta mia... salutami Toscana...’ certo non soltanto Sem-
prebene notaro era commosso e, nella commozione, rapito all’amore e
al culto della poesia.”
50. ‘‘Gli antichi usavano di dare il nome di Messere o di Sire anche alla
loro donna, alla maniera de’ Provenzali” (Nannucci).
55-60. One of the few instances of real lyric power to be adduced in this
body of verse.
Poem IT: S’Eo TrRovASSE PIETANGA
MSS: V 107 (Ser Nascimbene di Bologna); ER 65 (Re Enso); P 58
(Rex Hentius: Semprebonus not. bon.); Ch 238, Ma 48 (Messer Semprebene
da Bolongna); V? 7, UB 43a (Re Enzo et messere Guido Guinicelli).
Basic MS: For stanzas i-iii, MS P; for stanzas iv and v, MS V. The
choice of MS P as the basic MS for the first three stanzas of this poem
rests on the following facts: (1) P is one of the two oldest MSS represented
by the poem; (2) its readings are, in general, reliable; (3) its orthography
is here, as elsewhere, consistently archaic, as shown by the following forms
taken from its readings: trovasse, parte (2nd sing.); kereria; ka, k’a (= ka +
a); verria (= diverrebbe), vio (= veggio); sin (= se + inde); per le menbra;
omo; homo. For stanzas iv and v, preserved only in V and Ch, we have
based our text upon JV, since it is much the older of the two MSS, and offers
a slightly more conservative orthography than that of Ch. At line 68,
however, it is Ch which furnishes the Latinism place, which we have in-
corporated into our text.
Editions: Giurti, 118; Valeriani I, 171; Nannucci, 67; Casini, Poeit
bolognest, 183; D’Ancona e Bacci, I, 55; Carducci, 32.
Orthographical Note: V spells cie and gie for ce and ge, anza for anga;
ciertto, mortte, etc. LR spells ansa for anca; farea, serea, segonda, chut, ans,
dogloza, poza, escie; puot for po.
‘ : ; ABCD, ABCD; EFFGGH,
Metrical Scheme: 14 lines, 8+6; 64+-46. 777° «777 77777
5 stanzas (as in V and Ch); collegate.
General Note: This canzone is, in its personifications, its stanza-length,
and its general tone, the most formal, one might say the most pretentious
ll sk ee
The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio 407
of the poems of this entire group. It is nevertheless not lacking in expression
of deep feeling, and is, in many ways, the most serious poem of the group.
Torraca calls attention especially to stanza iii (Studz, 176): “Enzo, ... ne’
ventidue anni dell’ onesta sua prigionia, non pure, come narra la leggenda
per la vaghezza della persona, per la fama del valore, per la mesta aureola
della sventura, ond’ era circondato, vinse i cuori delle fanciulle; ma con la
presenza stimold, con l’esempio ammaestro i gentili visitatori alla poesia.
Non, forse, un amore imaginario, pit probabilmente il suo duro fato gl’ispird
questa, che é delle pit sentite strofe della lirica siciliana: (stanza iii). Fol-
chetto di Marsiglia aveva cantato: ‘Car meins mal es morir, al mieu sem-
blan que vivre ancse ab pena et ab afan’; altri Provenzali e Italiani avevano
ripetuto il concetto, ovvio del resto; ma chi |’aveva mai espresso in altret-
tanto tragica situazione?”
1. trovasse is an Old Italian form for trovasst. The personified figures of
this poem are Pietanca (Pietate, Pieta) and Merzede.
8. kereria = Mod. It. chiederet.
11. Certo ’l; nol: enclisis is common in the language of this poetry.
14. verria = Mod. It. diverrebbe.
15. This line might also be read: Crudele ed ispretata.
22. diservo: ‘‘Disservire é contrario di servire, siccome molti altri verbi com-
posti con la particella dis, . . . che prendono forza del contrario; qui
vale ‘mal servire, recar noia 0 incomodo’”’ (Nannucci) —fino: this is the
non-inchoative form of the verb, common in Meridional dialects.
25. si rinfresca: “‘renews itself.”
28. sanare = salute: Eng. “well-being.”
$2. soverkia parte = troppo; Eng. “‘excessive amount or share.”
36. The homonym rime is presented here on the basis of the Old It. verb-
form parte for parti; whereas, in the original, there is small doubt
but that the rime was a Meridional one: parti: parti. Cf. Poem I,
]. 37, note.
41. It may be that the reading of LR, nullo ivene, is to be preferred, ivene
to be taken as a Latinism, for znvenit, the line therefore running: “‘Nor
does he find any joy.”
42. che di ben s’aprenda: “which attaches itself to, which partakes of that
which is good.”
44, divisa = concepiscono (D’Ancona e Bacci); “I verbo singolare accordato
col nome plurale” (Nannucci).
50. A difficult line, unless the tanto of the two MSS be emended, as we
have chosen to do, to st.
57. ill: a Provencalism or possibly a Latinism (ala) for ella, cf. 1. 67.
408 The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio
60. sdingni:alingni. The Meridional rime is intact in MS V; Ch reads
sdengnt.
64. “‘And let Mercy humbly unite with her.”
68. place: Latinism preserved in Ch.
69. suo servir: objective genitive. The line: “on account of (the oppor-
tunity for) true service of her.”
Poem ITI: Tempo vENE KI SALE E KI DISCENDE
MSS: VB (Vaticano Barberino Latino $3953) 120 (Fra Guiton d’Areco);
Ch 250, Ma 438, V? 81, B 272 (Re Enzo).
Basic MS: The principal MSS are at such variance that it is impossible
to settle upon one as a basis. For the text of the octave we have depended
about equally on the three older MSS (VB, Ch, and V2); for that of the
first tercet, we have used the version of VB; while the text of the second
tercet is derived from Ch and V?, which are here in complete agreement, in
contrast to the text of VB which is more or less corrupt.
Editions: Allacci, 390; Valeriani I, 177; Monaci, 203; Rossetti (Trans-
lation), 167. |
Metrical Scheme: ABABABAB; CDE, CDE.
General Note: In “The Invention of the Sonnet” Professor Wilkins
has the following note on this sonnet: “There are extant four other
sonnets by poets of the Frederician group; but there is in each case
reason for thinking the poem later than the general body of Frederician
verse. One is by King Enzo, who was born in 1225, taken captive by the
Bolognese in 1249, and held prisoner for the rest of his life. His sonnet
opens with a reference to the uncertainty of fortune: ‘Tempo vene ki sale’
e ki discende.’ It is then probable that the poem was written during Enzo’s
captivity (1249-1272).””! In his translation, Rossetti has given the sonnet
a title: ‘On the Fitness of Seasons.”’ It is probable that, if Enzio wrote
this poem, it was written toward the end of his life, when disappointment
and the failure of his and his father’s cause had turned the carefree, dashing
soldier into a mature man of serious reflective habits.
1. ki: “when one.”
2. di and da, at least in the language of the scribes, seem to be inter-
changeable.
8. imprende: Meridional apocopated form for zmprendere.
10. cum: Latinism furnished by MS VB. The somewhat unusual form
culuy is also from VB.
1 Modern Philology XIII (1915), 463-464.
The Poems Ascribed to King Enzio 409
FrRaGMENT ITV: ALLEGRU CORI, PLENU
No MS version of the canzone, the first stanza of which is here given,
is extant. This single stanza was published by G. M. Barbieri in Origint
della poesia rimata, in 1790, as coming from the lost Libro siciliano; and
reprinted by Monaci, p. 204. Cf. the canzone by Stefano da Messina, Pir
meu cori alegrari, Monaci, p. 214. It is unfortunate that more exact infor-
mation about the original of this fragment should not be available. While
many scholars are convinced that we have here a sample of the original
language of the poets of the Frederician Group, others have advanced the
idea that in the Libro siciliano were published poems that had simply been
Sicilianized in language, and that such was the implication of the title of
the book. Until more evidence is available in regard to the origin and
nature of the Libro this interesting question cannot be decided.
Metrical Scheme: 7 lines, 4 + 8; 28 + 29. os oe eta
OBERLIN COLLEGE.
THE ROMANCE TEXT OF THE STRASSBURG
OATHS. WAS IT WRITTEN IN THE
NINTH CENTURY ?
By JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
VERY philologist knows that in the history of the French lan-
guage and literature the poverty of documents of the ninth.
tenth and eleventh centuries — what may be termed the First Old-
French period (before 1100) — is very great. Even the most funda-
mental facts cannot be determined with certainty. The text of the
Strassburg Oaths, a few literary fragments like the Cantiléne de Ste
Eulalie, the Fragment of Valenciennes part of a homily on Jonas,
and a few glossaries (Reichenau, Cassel, Tours, etc.), are all that have
survived.' Accordingly, inductive and inverse reasoning, hypothesis
and conjecture, have necessarily been resorted to in order to bridge
the gap.
One document, however, the Strassburg Oaths,' has ever been re-
garded as of unimpeachable integrity. Yet, as the result of a close
study of Nithard, whose Historia ? is our sole source of information
on this point, I have become convinced that a revaluation of the
evidence is worth while, and that a new conclusion is to be formed.
One need not be accused of excessive skepticism if he is on his
guard in this matter on learning the history of the manuscript of
Nithard. Only one manuscript is known, Bibliotheque Nationale,
fonds latins, 9768, and this dates from at least one hundred and
fifty years * after Nithard’s death in 843. Certainly two, more prob-
ably three, copyists were intermediate between the original manu-
script and that which we possess.‘ In the first half of the fifteenth
century the manuscript pertained to the abbey of St Magloire near
Paris, founded by Hugh Capet between 970 and 980. In 1572 the
1 Ed. by W. Forster and E. Koschwitz, Altfrz. Ubungsbuch (5th ed., Leipzig, 1915),
col. 2-59, 206-14, 226-34, 247; important bibliogr. addenda, col. 283 ff.
2 Historiarum libri IV, ed. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, 11, 649-72.
3 Cf. A. Gasté, Les serments de Strassbourg (1888), 23; A. Wallenskild, Strassburger-ederna,
den ilsta bevarade texten pai franska spraket, Overs. av Finska Vet. Soc., Férh. LXIII:B,
Helsingfors, 1921; reviewed Romanta, XLVII (1921), 421 f.
‘ See infra, p. 433.
410
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 411
monks of St Magloire were removed to a convent situated near St
Jacques-du-Haut-Pas. It seems probable that their books and manu-
scripts were then sold; for the Historia of Nithard first became known
to historical scholarship at this time. The President Fauchet, who
acquired the manuscript, showed it to Jean Bodin, who first published
the now famous text of the Sirassburg Oaths. Later the manuscript
passed into the hands of Paul Petau, who died in 1614. In 1650
it was acquired by the well-known collector and antiquary Isaac
Voss, purchasing agent for Queen Christina of Sweden, all of whose
magnificent collection passed into possession of theVatican Library
after her death in 1689.! In 1798 when the French troops of the
Directory took Rome, the manuscript of Nithard was carried to
Paris and was not restored to the Vatican after 1814, when so many
libraries recovered the books and manuscripts of which the govern-
‘ment of the Directory and of Napoleon had despoiled them. The
secret of its retention, however, was carefully guarded. When Pertz
was engaged in preparation of the text of Nithard for the Mon-
umenta, he sought in vain to examine the manuscript, which he be-
lieved to be in Rome, and thought that the Vatican authorities
willfully withheld it from him. He had no idea that Nithard was
quietly reposing in the Salle des manuscrits at the Bibliothéque
Nationale.
Since Pertz’s futile endeavor to see the original, the manuscript of
Nithard has been meticulously examined and studied, and the text
of the Strassburg Oaths reproduced by photographic process.? At
first glance it would seem the height of hypercriticism to challenge
the authenticity of the text; for Nithard, iii, 5, plainly reads:
Et sacramenta quae subter notata sunt Lodhuwicus romana, Karolus
uero teudisca, lingua iurauerunt. Ac sic ante sacramentum circumfusam
1 On Isaac Voss and Queen Christina, see E. J. Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship,
II, 322 f., IIT, 389-42.
? See F. Diez, Altromanische Sprachdenkmdler, 1846; E. Koschwitz, Les plus anciens monu-
ments de la langue francaise, 2d ed., Heilbronn, 1880 (cf. Gaston Paris, Romania, XV (18886),
443-45); Gasté, op. cit. supra; Kar] Wahlund, “ Bibliographie der franzdsischen Strassburger
Eide vom Jahre 842,” Festgabe fiir Adolfo Mussafia, 1905; Carl Voretzsch, Einfiihrung in das
Studium der Altfranzisischen Literatur, $d ed., Halle, Niemeyer: 1925, p.81f. Other literature
will be referred to in the course of this article.
412 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
plebem, alter teudisca, alter romana lingua, alloquiti sunt. Ludhuwicus
autem, quia maior natu, prior exorsus, sic coepit.
Then follows in Latin what may be regarded as the preamble, and
we then read:
Cumque Karolus haec eadem uerba romana lingua perorasset. . . . Pro
Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun saluament. . .
The German form of the oath then follows, after which the fideles of
each king were sworn:
Populus quique propria lingua testatus est. Romana lingua sic se habet:
Si Lodhuuigs sagrament que son fradre Karlo iurat, conseruat, et Carlus
meos sendra de suo part. ...
In spite, however, of what seems plain statement that a ‘roman’
or Old-French version of the oath was actually employed at Strass-
burg in 842, an examination of the entire history of this event has
led me to doubt the traditional interpretation. It is my opinion that
the alternative text to the German form of the oath was written by
Nithard in the usual Latin! of the ninth century, and that some
later copyist converted the original Latin form recorded by Nithard
into ‘roman’ or Old French. The purpose of this article is to show
the probability of this hypothesis.
Let us begin with the phrase romana lingua or lingua romana.
Does it mean Old French? During the Merovingian period romana
was certainly used to distinguish the Latin language from the lingua
barbara, or German.’ In the Salic Law the word romanus indicates
a person of Gallo-Roman, as distinguished from German, blood.?
The earliest usage cited by philologists of the phrase romana lingua in
contradistinction to Latin, is the case of St Mummolinus, who was
1 It is important that the various kinds of Latin in use in the Middle Ages be made clear.
There were three different sorts of Latin current: (1) written Latin, based on classical Latin,
but greatly modified both in vocabulary and syntax by ‘low’ or ‘base’ Latin; (2) spoken, but
unwritten Latin used by the common people of Romance stock, and known as lingua culgaris,
lingua rustica, lingua tnerudita, sermo latinus, sermo utuus and referred to in this article as
‘Vulgar Latin’; and (3) Vetus Latina, or * Ecclesiastical Latin.’ Both the common, written
Mediaeval Latin, and Ecclesiastical Latin were constantly subjected to the invading and
corroding influence of the Vulgar Latin noted in (2) above.
2 F. E. Brunot, Histoire de la langue frangaise, I (Paris, 1905), 16.
3 Bulletin de [ Académie de Belgique, Sér. ii, XLIX (1880), 28.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 413
appointed bishop of Noyon in 656 “‘qua praeualebat non tantum in
teutonica, sed etiam in romana lingua.” 1 Of Adalhard of Corbie
({826) it is told that he was fluent in three languages:
Qui si uulgari, id est, romana lingua, loqueretur, omnium aliarum puta-
retur inscius; si uero theutonica, enitebat perfectius; ei Latina, nulla omnino
absolutius.?
Less than a generation after Adalhard of Corbie we find mention of
the linguistic proficiency of Hartgar of Liége, who succeeded Bishop
Pirard in 840. He belonged to the High German nobility, and it
even seems that he was related to the Carolingian family. He was
zealous in the encouragement of education in his diocese, and accord-
ing to Sedulius Scotus, the Irish poet who dwelt at his court, Hartgar
was fluent in three languages. M. Pirenne thinks that these three
languages were “probably’’ Latin, German, and ‘roman.’* But
there is not sufficient evidence to believe that Walloon — and any
French tongue current around Liége must have been Walloon — ex-
isted as a distinct dialect before the tenth century.‘ A juster suppo-
sition is that the third language spoken by Hartgar was Flemish,
which may have become enough differentiated from Frankish by the
ninth century to be a distinct and separate speech, since there is
evidence that at this time Frankish was gravitating towards High
German.°
1 Acta Sanctorum, 16 October, vii, 2980, or Acta Sanctorum Selecta, IV, 408. Cf. Brunot,
op. cit., I, 188, note; A. Darmesteter, Grammaire historique, p. 25.
2 Migne, Pat. Lat., CXLVII, 1060.
* Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, I, 152.
‘ Kurth, “La frontiére linguistique en Belgique et dans le nord de la France,’’ Mem. cour.
Acad. Belg., XLVIII (quarto, 1895), must be read with caution and not too implicitly
followed. L. Vanderkindere, Introduction a l'histoire de Belgique, Brussels, 1890, pp. 82, 88,
11], 112, 224, 225, remarks the prevalence of Frankish speech in Belgium in the ninth cen-
tury. Compare Migne, Pat. Lat. CXXXIX, 1146, note. The Cantiléne de Ste Eulalte and the
homily on Jonas are probably in the Walloon dialect and of the tenth century (Wilmotte,
Bulletin Acad. Belg. Lettres, 1908, p. 261, although Brunot, I, 145, dates the former as about
880). The earliest positive reference to Walloon occurs in the “‘Gesta abbat. S Trud.” Mon.
Ger. Hist., Scriptores, X, 229, where it is said of Abbot Adelard (999-1034): “‘Igitur primus
Adelardus nativam linguam non habutt teutonicam, sed quam corrupte uocant Romanam, teu-
tonice ‘Walloniam’.”
& D’Arbois de Jubainville, “Le texte franc. des serments de Strassbourg,” Bibliothéque de
Ecole des Chartes, XXXII (1877), 889. Wilmotte, ‘La culture frang. en Flandres,” Bull,
Acad. Belg. Lettres, 1908, p. 264, note, thinks that Flemish was of slower evolution than
414 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
As for the Vita S. Mummolini and the Vita S. Adalhardz, in spite
of the weight attached to the statements in them, they are actually
of no historical value as evidence of the prevalence of Old French in
northern Gaul anterior to the Strassburg Oaths. How much reliance
can one put upon their evidence when one learns that both were
written two hundred years or more after the death of the saints
which are commemorated? St Mummolinus died between 685 and
691, but his Vzta was not written before the tenth century, when the
monastic reform movement initiated by Gérard of Brogne in Flan-
ders and Brabant reorganized the decrepit abbey of St Bavon and
St Blandin in Ghent, St Bertin, St Amand, St Omer and St Vaast,
and the revival recalled to men’s minds the ancient labors of St
Mummolinus in the same localities over two hundred years before.
With regard to the Vita Adalhardi, which is cited by every romance
philologist, it is so far from being contemporary that its author,
Gerard of Silva Maior, an offshoot of Corbie, may have witnessed
the First Crusade. We have a charter of his bearing the date 1091.1
The case is made worse still when we set this late Vita Adalhardi
side by side with the ninth century Vita Adalhardi written by Pascha-
sius Radbertus, who died in 860, and whose youth, therefore, coin-
cided with the old age of Adalhard, and who was himself an abbot
of Corbie:
NintH CENTURY
Quem si uulgo audisses, dulcifluus
emanabat, si uero idem barbara
quam Teutiscam dicunt, lingua lo-
queretur, praeeminebat claritatis
eloquio, quod si latine, iam ulterius
prae aviditate dulcoris non erat
spiritus.
Pertz, Scriptores, II, 532, c. 77.
ELEVENTH CENTURY
Qui si uulgari, id est romana lingua,
loqueretur, omnium aliarum puta-
retur inscius; si uero theutonica, en-
itebat perfectius; ei Latina, nulla
omnino absolutius.
Migne, Patroloma Latina,
CXLVII, 1060
Walloon as a provincial dialect. Nevertheless, it is a striking coincidence that at almost the
same time we are told of Adelard of St Trond speaking Walloon, we learn of Folcuin of
Lobbes that he was fluent in Flemish, German, and French. See Kurth, op. cit., XLVIII, ii,
19, note 3. The date is 990.
1 Migne, Pat. Lat., CXLVII, 1077-80; E. Marténe & U. Durand, Thesaurus nouus
Anecdotorum (Paris, 1717), I, 255.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 415
In the former nothing whatever is said of any knowledge of the
,Yomance tongue by Adalhard. The only languages mentioned are
“ German and Latin. His eleventh-century biographer has embellished
the narrative with his own invention and, writing when French was
the dominant speech of all Gaul, attributed to his hero knowledge
of the Old-French tongue back in a time when it did not yet exist!
It was an act of pious homage on the part of mediaeval biographers
of saints to ascribe to them the pentecostal gift of tongues.
In the ninth century the words romana lingua are invariably used
to signify Latin, and do not signify Old French. When Vulgar Latin
is meant, an additional qualifying adjective is employed, as rustica
romana lingua (Council of Tours, 813). More commonly, how-
ever, lingua rustica or lingua uulgaris are the terms used to signify
Vulgar Latin; others were lingua inerudita, sermo plebevus, sermo
rusticanus, sermo uiuus.)
Fundamentally, the employment of the word romana, even in the
ninth and tenth centuries, was of political, not of linguistic designa-
1 For interesting allusions to Vulgar Latin, see Jfon. Germ. Hist., Leges, ed. Krause I, 79,
line 25, “‘lingua inerudita.” Idem, IJ, 176, canon 17, council of Tours in 818, enjoining upon
the bishop that “‘qutsque aperte transferre studeat in rusticam romanam linguam aut in theu-
tiscam,”’ i.e., “translate his sermons into vulgar Latin or German as the case may be.” So
again when we find the council of Aachen in 817, art. 18, enjoining “ usum Latinitatis quam
rusticitatis”’ in the monasteries, the distinction is between Latin and Vulgar Latin (Mansi,
Concilia, XIV, 358; Werminghoff, Concilia aevt Karolint, II, i, 448). The sermo utuus of
Charlemagne’s capitularies, Pertz, Leges, I, 160 (809), 169 (811) is likewise Vulgar Latin.
Regino, Chrontcon, anno 818, has an intriguing statement that he found some of hisinformation
“*an quodam ltbello reppert plebeto et rusticano sermone.”’ Does this, too, mean Vulgar Latin?
or German? If the latter, this little book now lost must have been the earliest history in the
German language of which we have record. Other terms of distinction not always carefully
observed by modern scholars are barbara loquela, lingua barbara and sermo barbarus. The
words do not always mean German, though usually so understood; for they may mean rustic
or uncouth Latin; cf. Brunot, I, 20. Bede (iii, 7) uses barbara loquela to distinguish Frankish
“ speech from Old English. Plummer, in his edition of Bede (2 vols., Oxford, 1896), II, 41,
deplores Bede’s “‘tendency to regard all foreign speech as barbarous,” but I do not think
Bede meant the allusion with contempt, but merely to distinguish Old English from
Continental Frankish. He used the phrase exactly as lingua barbara and sermo barbarus
were used to denote German. No contempt was implied in the expression. Great caution is
necessary in order to determine the exact meaning of these terminologies. Not until the tenth
century at least — and not always then — does lingua romana signify the romance language.
A curious cross-current of usage occurs in Adhemar of Chabannes, Chronicon, III, 27, who
uses ‘latinus sermo”’ to mean Old French in the twelfth century. Another similar instance
may be found in P. Labbé, Concetta, III, 202, a citation from the Chronicon Malleacense in
Bas-Poitou. .
416 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
tion, as of course it had been earlier. The peoples of Latin stock, in
contact with the Germans, thought less of Latinity than of the once
widespread political domination of Rome. The Gallo-Roman pop-
ulation called themselves “Romani.” In no Latin country in the
Middle Ages was this political sense so strong as in France, where the
Roman imperial tradition, though not oldest there, was strongest.
Even in Italy in the tenth century this fact was recognized by Luit-
prand of Cremona who could write: “‘ Francia romana,” and “‘ Fran-
ciam quam Romanam dicunt.” ?
_. The term of designation for Old French used by contemporary
“writers in the ninth and tenth centuries was lingua gallica; * for, as
I shall endeavor to show in the next paragraph, lingua romana
meant normal written Mediaeval Latin.
In the tenth century — and not in the ninth — when romance
speech became nationalized north of the Loire, as it had already
been in the south in the previous century, it is then everywhere
called lingua gallica, which became its usual name.* Only in later
times did the term lingua romana, meanmg Latin, in the ninth cen-
tury, gradually lose its early significance and come to signify ‘roman’
or romance speech.°
There is ground for the belief, and I think the truth is, that in
1 This is invariably the sense in which it is used in the capitularies. I cite the following
illustrations from the edition of Krause, vols. I-II: Romani: I, 218, line 25; 219, line 1; 230,
lines 10 and 15; 323, lines 5 and 20; 354, lines 40 and 45; II, 124, line 24; 125, line 25; 481,
line 10; 496, line 25; 497, line 5; 499, line 40; 500, line 5; 501, lines 1 and 35; 507, lines 1 and
10; 508, line 25; 518, line 15; 515, line 5. Romanum ius: I, 515, line 15; Romana lez; I, 145,
line 15; 170, line 30; 204, line 35; 218, line 25; 219, line 1; 369, line 5; IT, 281, line 10; 315, line
25; 316, line 35; 319, line 1; 320, line 20; 322, line 30; 324, line 15; 330, line 30: Romanae leges:
I, 19, lines 1 and 25; II, 27, line 20; 123, line 25; 416, line 15.
2 Antapodosts, I, 14 and 15.
3 For instance, Ioannes Diaconus, ca. 874, writes: ‘‘Ille more gallico (= sermone gallico)
sanctum senem increpitans follem (Fr. fol, fou). Compare Du Cange, s.v. follis. The monk
of St Gall, about 884, observes: “‘caniculas, quas gallica lingua ueltres noncupant,’’ I, 20.
In the next century, ca. 980, Widukind, IJ, 17, writes: “‘ex nostris etiam fuere qui gallica
lingua ez parte logut sctebant.” But in II, $6 he uses the form Romana lingua, in the sense of
Old French. So in the same century of the synod of Mouzon (995) we are told: episcopus
Viridunensis eo quod gallicam linguam norat, etc., Concilia, VI, L, 729.
‘ Compare Richerus, Historia (iv, 100); Liutprand, Hist. Ott. c. ii; Ekkehard, De
Casibus S. Galli, ss. II, 139.
* The earliest certain use — though I am open to correction — of romana lingua in the
sense of Old French seems to be in Widukind, ii, 36. Cf. note 3 above.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 417
the ninth century no one of the romance languages, whether French,
Italian or Spanish, was yet sufficiently differentiated from Latin to
possess a distinct identity to be regarded as a national speech.
Raynouard ! long ago cited the anecdote related in Mabillon, Act.
SS. Bened. sec. iii, pt. 2, p. 258, of an Italian priest who met with
a Spanish pilgrim travelling in Germany in the time of Charle-
magne, and thought, from his conversation, that the latter was an
Italian ( . . . quoniam linguae eius eo quod esset Italus, notitiam
habebat). In confirmation of this anecdote I am able to cite further
evidence to indicate that in the ninth century the future romance
languages of Europe were yet undifferentiated — evidence which,
so far as my knowledge goes, has not been observed by philologists.
It is from the Jtinerarium Bernardi monachi Franci,? a Frankish
monk who went to the Holy Land in 868-70. The extract is as
follows:—
. . . de Emmaus peruenimus ad Sanctam ciuitatem Ierusalem, & recepti
sumus in hospitale gloriosissimi imperatoris Karoli, in quo suscipiuntur
omnes qui causa deuotionis illum adeunt locum, linguam loquentes Romanam.
This evidently means all pilgrims of the Frankish Empire of Latin
blood, whether from Gaul, Italy or Spain, among whom Latin was
still a common and universal speech.
Einhard, the biographer of Charlemagne, Thegan, the biographer -
of Louis the Pious, and Walafrid Strabo, all express anxiety lest the
Latin they write show the corrupting influence of vulgar or rustic
Latin. In the proém to the Vita Karoli Einhard says, in addressing
the reader:
There is nothing for you to wonder at or admire except his deeds, unless
indeed it be that I, a barbarian [i.e., a German] and little versed in the
Roman tongue (tn romana locutione) have imagined that I could write
Latin without offence and usefully (decenter aut commode Latine scribere
posse putauerim).
Obviously here romana locutio means the normal written Mediaeval
1 Lexique Roman, I, introd. xvi, and Grammaire compararée des langues de [ Europe latine
(1821), p. xxix.
2 In T. Tobler and A. Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana, I (Publ. de la Société de
YOrient Latin, sérié géographique, Geneva, 1879, in 2 vols.), I, $14, c. 10.
418 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
Latin. Walafrid Strabo apologizes for the “quantulacumque rustici-
tatvs’’ of his style.!. Nithard himself, of he meant Old French and
not Latin when he penned the words “lingua romana,” did violence
to the customary meaning of the words in the ninth century and,
moreover, radically departed from the nomenclature of Einhard,
whom everywhere else Nithard slavishly imitates where he can do
so.?
Sufficient study has not yet been made of the Latin of the
ninth and tenth centuries with a view to detecting the corruption
of it by the vernacular, and to discover syntactical changes and
verbal substitutions illustrating the gradual evolution of Old French;
nor will this be possible until we know with more certainty the date
and place of origin of the earliest monuments of the Old French
tongue; * until the time of their composition and their place of
1 Ebert, Geschichte der lateinischen literatur im Mittelalter, IT, 398.
2 Parallelism will make this imitation by Nithard of Einhard quite clear:
Einhard, Vita Karoli Nithard, Historia
Praef.— Illustrissima hominis . . . gesta silen- Praef.— Praeterire autem ea quae... gesta
tio praeterirem sunt
Cap. 8.— hoc bellum sumpsit exordium Praef.— Textus hinc sumat exordium
Cap. 9.— in summi montis uertice
Praef.— Nullum ea ueracius quam me scri-
bere posse quibus ipse interfui
Cap. 6.— quem bellorum quae gessit euentus
memoriae mandare curabo
Annales Einhardt
820 — Liudewitus nihil molitus
802.— Qui tunc rem publicam regebat
772.— juxta montem qui castris erat con-
tiguus
798.— ingenti eos caede prostrauit.
ii, 10.— uerticem montis
lii, praef.— ex quibus interfui tertium libel-
lum ut adderem
iv, praef.— facta . .
mandare
. stili officio memoriae
J, 1.— nihil in imperio moliri
I, 4.— et rem publicam regere
I, 10.— uerticem montis castris contigui
IV, 6.— nimia caede prostrati sunt.
3 Abbo’s poem, De bellis Paristacae Urbis aduersus Normannos, is rich in matter of this
kind. Indeed, so abundant are the examples that the author himself provided his text with
a glossary in book iii, preface. Thus he explains mergitibus by garbis (ii, 87), catetam by dar-
dam, multo by custos mulorum, agason by prouisor equorum, curtis by locus uacuus. Some of
his observations sound like popular proverbs (iii, 54). Altogether, this work, from the point of
view of the Vulgar Latin idiom, deserves a more careful examination than it has yet had. In
the Gesta pontificum Cameracensium, iii, 42, we find sonia, whence French soin, and in iii, 60,
habuerat facere (compare French avaté 2 faire) instead of Latin debere. In Migne, Patrologia
Latina, CXLIX, 162, note 370, occurs in tributs (i.e., treutts), whence Old-French trebres and
Modern French tréves. An ordo excommunicationis of the tenth century instructs the bishop
to translate the Latin into vernacular. — Migne, Pat. Lat., CXXXVIII, 1125, which by
that time probably had become Old French (lingua Gallica).
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 419
origin is more satisfactorily established, I confess almost as great
distrust of the early glossaries, such as that of Reichenau (that of
Cassel is out of consideration since it probably originated in a Latin
country), and for fragments like the Ste Eulalie, the St Leger, and
the homily on Jonas, as I have for the Vita S. Mummolini and the
Vita S. Adalhardi.1 The only glossaries in circulation in the ninth
century were for Greek and Vulgar Latin, for which Hincmar seems
to have had a high contempt.? These glossaries, at least those for
Vulgar Latin, owed their composition to Charlemagne, who was
alarmed over the fact that many of the Frankish clergy, owing to
the corrupting influence of Vulgar Latin upon them, could no longer
understand the Vulgate Bible and the writings of the Fathers, and
accordingly had the commentary of St Jerome upon the Scriptures
translated in lingua vulgart.
It is evident from conciliar legislation in the ninth century that
the problem of the currency of two languages in northern Gaul dis-
turbed the church; for, in addition to the legislation already cited of
the councils of Tours (813) and Aachen (816), we find the council of
Rheims taking similar action in 813. No language is definitely speci-
fied; the injunction is “ut episcopr sermones et homilias . . . prout
omnes intelligere possint secundum proprietatem linguae praedicare
studeant.””? But the inference that this language alternative to
Frankish German was a true Romance speech is not sustained.
‘Romance’ speech did not yet obtain as a vernacular north of the
Loire river in the ninth century. Where the language was not Ger-
man, it was still Vulgar Latim — a barbarous and an abominable
syntax not yet far enough advanced or differentiated to be dignified
as ‘roman.’
For this vulgar speech, neither Latin nor yet French, but, as
Coleridge once described a meat course, “‘ veal hovering on the edge
1 Diez and Brunot think the Cantilena to be of the latter half of the ninth century and
the Jonas to be of the late ninth or early tenth, but are doubtful as to the dialect. Wilmotte
boldly asserts that both are in Walloon (Bulletin Acad. Belg. Lettres, 1908, 261). But the ex-
istence of a Romance language in northeastern France and Flanders as early as the ninth
century is impossible; for, as I have shown below, the whole of this region was then still pre-
dominantly German in tongue.
2 Du Cange, Glossarium, praefatio, sec. 40.
3 P. Labbé, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XIV, 78, canon 15.
420 The Romance Tezt of the Strassburg Oaths
of beef,”’ the Frankish aristocracy had a deep contempt. We have
a remarkable evidence of this — and of ninth century expression,
too — in Waldalbert’s Vita S. Goaris, IT, ii, written in 839 at the
request of Marcward of Priim, the friend of Abbot Loup (Lupus) of
Ferriéres. The passage is too interesting not to be cited:
Cum omnes Romanae nationis ac linguae homines ita quodam gentilitio
odio execraretur, ut ne uidere quidem eorum aliquem aequanimiter uellet,
ac si quos forte ex eadem familia comprehendere potuisset crudeliter non-
numquam affceret.!
Besides the necessity of defining more sharply than romance
philologists have yet done the significance of the terms employed for
the various sorts of language current in the ninth and tenth cen-
turies, more attention should also be directed to the history of the
spread of the romance tongue and its ultimate victory over German
in the territory north of the Loire.
The evidence of conciliar legislation with reference to the cur-
rency of German in northern Gaul, which has been cited, is sustained
by other historical evidence. Louis the Pious, although he dwelt
many years in Aquitaine, Poitou, and Anjou before 814, knew nothing
but German. Although Charles the Bald could speak Vulgar Latin,
he did not do so habitually or by preference. The language of the
court was German.? German was spoken around Corbie, St Riquier
and Ferriéres. A catalogue of books pertaining to St Riquier in 831
lists a Passio Domini in theudisca et latina and the testament of
Count Ekkard of Burgundy mentions an Euangelium Theudiscum.’
The case of Ferriéres near Sens is especially clear. In 847 we find
the famous Abbot Loup writing to his friend Marceward of Priim
that a knowledge of the German language is still very necessary
1 The same sentiment of repugnance is found also in the Sftracula S. Goaris: Tanta enim
ejus antmum innata ex feritate barbarica stoliditas apprehenderat, ut ne in transitu quidem
romanae linguae uel gentis homines libenter aspicere posset. — M.G. H., Scriptores, Ul, 365.
? Bonamy, Sfém. Acad. Inscrip. XXIV, 657; Hist. litt. de la France, IV, 409-10; Thierry,
Lettres sur Uhist. de France, 6th ed., pp. 47 and 220; A. W. Schlegel, Observations sur la langue
et la littérature prorengales (1898), 101.
3 E. L. Dimmler, Gesch. d. ostfrank. Reiches, 2d ed., I, 20 and note 4; Hariulf, Chronique
de St Riquier, ed., F.Lot, ITI, 3.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 421
around Ferriéres unless a man would be considered a blockhead.!
It is probably true that in Loup’s time around Sens German speech
had ceased to be as prevalent or as pure as formerly; for in 836 we
find Loup sending his nephew and two other boys of noble family
to Priim in Lorraine “ propter linguae nanciscendam scientiam.”? But
that the German language still tenaciously held on in the dioceses
of Rheims and Sens all through the ninth and even into the tenth
century admits of no doubt. Folcuin, the historian of Lobbes who
wrote about 980, mentions German and Latin as still prevailing in
northern Gaul, and there can be no doubt that by ‘latina’ he does
not mean ‘roman’ but Vulgar Latin.* Further we learn from Flo-
doard ({966), who has preserved for us a letter of Fulk, Archbishop
of Rheims, murdered in 900, that around Thérouanne German was
the only language.‘ In the capitularies of Charles the Bald the
expression lingua theutisca occurs three times.®
Not only between the Meuse and the Seine, but between the
Seine and the Loire also, it is very doubtful whether in the ninth
century any true Romance language obtained that was yet suffi-
ciently differentiated from Vulgar Latin to be regarded as a distinct
tongue. We have already seen that the council of Tours in 813
recognized the presence there of ‘theutisca.’ Among the proper-
names of the tenants of the abbey of St Germain-des-Prés (Paris),
the register of which was compiled ca. 811-26, those of German
form are about nine times as numerous as Roman or Latin names.®
1 Linguae uestrae ...usum hoc tempore pernecessarium nemo nisi tardus ignorat, Lettres de
Loup de Ferriéres, ed. Desdevizes du Dezert, No. XXVIII, p. 186. M. Desdevizes du Dezert
is certainly in error when he declares that Loup himself did not understand German (p. 205,
note). He makes Loup’s letter to Immo bishop of Noyon (No. XLI, p. 62) prove too much
when he so asserts. For what Loup says is that he is “not captivated by the German lan-
guage.” But that was due to his classical inclinations, not to ignorance. The gutturalness
and rough intonation of German speech was repugnant to him when compared with the
smoothness of classical Latin. If the editor had consulted the preface which Loup wrote to
his Vita Sancti Wigbert, abbot of Fritzlar, he would have so discovered: Id autem a periti bene-
uolentia lectoris obtinuerim, ut sicubt Latint sermonts lenitas hominum locorumue nominibus
Germanicae linguae uernacults asperatur, modice ferat, ac, etc., Migne, Pat. Lat., CXTX, 681.
2 Lettres de Loup de Ferriéres, No. XXXII], p. 98.
3 Duobus usitatts Galliae locutionum generibus Latina utdelicet et Teutonica, Gesta abbat.
S. Trud, c 2, SS IV, 56. 4 Hist. Eccles. Rem., iv, 8.
5 Diimmler, op. cit., II, 20, and note 4.
6 J. W. Hessels, “Irminon’s Polyptichum,” Trans. Philolog. Society, XXX (1899-1902),
478.
“
422 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
Similarly in the list of monks of St Martin of Tours in the Libri
Confraternitatum Sanctt Galli, edited by Piper, and according to
Professor E. K. Rand ! probably compiled in 820, many of the names
smack of German lineage. Along the Channel coast in what was
to become western Normandy in the tenth century the ancient
Saxon settlements made there in the fourth and fifth centuries still
preserved their Germanic character in the time of Charles the Bald.?
In the light of this accumulated evidence, of which romance phil-
ologists have taken too little cognizance, it seems certain that in
the ninth century German was the reigning language all over north-
ern Gaul, the only part of Gaul over which Charles the Bald possessed
any political authority. Bonamy’s contention made as long ago as
the eighteenth century that “‘on parloit encore la langue tedesque au
milieu de la France cette année-la”’ (813) * is unhesitatingly confirmed
by later historians.‘ The evidence is too convincing to allow one to
disclaim the statement that in the ninth century the whole territory
of Frankish Gaul, north of the Loire from the edge of Brittany to the
1 “The Vatican Livy and the script of Tours,” Memoirs American Acad. in Rome, I
(1917), 24f. Compare Mabille, Za pancarte notre de St Martin de Tours (1866). However, as
N. D. Fuste] de Coulanges protested, Revue d. quest. hist., XLI (1887), 18-15 (cf. L’invaston
germanique, 598), the evidence of proper-names must not be stressed too much. In the fifth
century we find Romans assuming German names as in the previous century we find German
captains in the imperial armies wearing Roman names. The practice was facilitated among
the Franks more than among the other German peoples owing to their catholicism, which
made mixed marriages common. E. LeBlant, in his study of the relation of names to race
(Mém. de la Soc. Natl. des antig. 3. sér., t. 8 (1862), 78, 74), showed that the diffusion of
German proper-names in Gaul followed an ascending curve from the sixth to the eighth
century. In the sixth the ratio is 47 to 21; in the seventh, $ to 7. An enormous pre-
ponderance of Roman names over German appears in the names of the clergy. From 475
to 578 the signatures to episcopal acts are in the proportion of 508 Roman names to 28
German, or 1 to 18. Cf. G. Kurth, Revue d. quest. hist., LVII (1895), 388-92.
2 Compare F. Lot, “Les migrations saxonnes en Gaule et en Grande Bretagne,” Revue
Hist., CXIX (1915), 20; F. Lot and L. Halphen, Le régne de Charles le Chaure, I, 87, note 3;
144, note 2; Prentout, Essat sur les origines et la fondation du duché de Normandie, 51-76;
Mém. Acad. de Caen, vol. supplém. Millénaire de Normandie (1911); Revue Hist., CVI
(1911), 285 f.
3 Mém. Acad. Inscrip., XXIV, 657.
« “Dans la seconde moitié du neuviéme siécle la langue de la cour de France, sinon celle
du pays, était purement tudesque,”’ Augustin Thierry, op. cit., p. 47; ‘Die lingua theutisca
muss damals noch bis ins westliche Frankreich hinein gesprochen und verstanden worden
sein,” E. Jacobs, ‘‘ Die Stellung der Landesprachen im Reiche der Karolinger,”’ Forschungen
zur deutschen Gesch., III (1863), 369 and $80. Kurth’s assertion that ‘“‘dés le VIle siécle
Tidiome germanique avatt cessé détre entendu”” (Mém. Acad. Belg., XLVIII (quarto, 1895),
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 423
Meuse, was predominantly German in speech; that the only other
language current was Vulgar Latin, spoken by the peasantry of Ro-
man ancestry, but not yet become Old French.
One’s skepticism as to the employment of ‘roman’ at Strassburg
in 842 grows greater when we examine certain political facts. Charles
the Bald’s power south of the Loire was merely titular except in the
region of Toulouse, where he seems to have had a handful of follow-
ers. Nearly all the Midi and the whole Southwest was de facto
independent of him, had been so for years, and was to continue so
for years to come. “Aquitani pene omnés a Karolo recedunt,” wails ~
a chronicler in 853.1 The repugnance of the provinces of the South
for the North was a very strong and enduring sentiment: “‘la forma-
tion dans le royaume de l'ouest de deux états séparés par la Loire étatt
dans la nature des choses.? Since Charles’s adherents were almost
wholly drawn from the North and the Northeast provinces which,
as we have seen, were still strongly German in language, and further,
since the language of the court was German, why should a ‘roman-——_
form of language have been resorted to in the Strassburg Oaths?
For the benefit of Charles’s mere handful of supporters from the
Midi? One cannot believe it.
Diez has observed that “to make the antiquity of a word depend
absolutely on its first appearance in accessible documents, is a pro-
a
pt. ii, 4) around Paris and Rouen and even Tournai is worse than gross exaggeration; it is
untrue to the contemporary historical evidence, although his general descriptive statement
of the gradual process of language transformation is correct:
“Or, sur le sol de l’ancienne Gaule, la plus forte était toujours le latin. Malgré sa décrepi-
tude apparente, il avait une richesse de vocabulaire, une flexibilité de formes et une variété
de nuances qui en faisaient un instrument de relations beaucoup plus maniable que l’idiome
germanique. De plus, la difficulté spéciale qu’avaient 4 apprendre un idiome barbare les
Gallo-Romains, enfants d’une vieille société qui restait en possession d’une langue vraiment
civilisée, ne devait pas contribuer 4 les incliner vers |’étude des langues germaniques. Tout
au contraire, doué d’une faculté spéciale pour s’assimiler le verbe d’autrui, et ayant plus
souvent besoin du latin que le Gallo-Romain de |’allemand, le barbare savait en général deux
langues, alors que le civilisé n’en possédait qu’une (op. cit., pt. ii, 5).”’
But the analogy Kurth draws (pp. 6-7) between the Norsemen in Normandy in the tenth
century and the Franks in the sixth is far-fetched. The evidence that all Northern Gaul was
predominantly German in speech until at least the end of the ninth century is too convincing
for such a statement to be maintained.
1 Ann. Bert., anno 858.
2 A. Parisot, Le royaume de Lorraine sous les Carolingiens (Paris, 1889), p. 23, note 4.
424 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
cedure, doubtless, of diplomatic propriety, but a superficial one,
because it inevitably does violence to the history of language.” ?
Conversely, I would say that to predicate the antiquity of a lan-
guage on the faith of a single document, when the historical evidence 1s
against the existence of such a language in the time to which the docu-
ment is attributed, is unhistorical. If the historical facts are right,
then such a document is not what it is alleged to be. It is either a
forgery or must be attributed to a later period and, in the form pre-
served, must be regarded as an interpolation or a glossed record of
the original.
The probability of the hypothesis that the original text of the
Strassburg Oaths was in Latin and that the romance form of it which
we now possess is a later translation into ‘roman’ of the original
Latin text, grows stronger when we examine other similar compacts
of the ninth century in which Charles the Bald and his brothers
_ figured. We have record of many such compacts, together with the
text of several of them.
In 847 was the first conuentus of Meersen. In 851 a second took
place there. The Annals of St Bertin make mention of an intermedi-
ate conference in 849, and we have the text of the two conventions
at Meersen. Again in 853 Lothar and Charles met at Valenciennes,
and we have the text of the instrument there agreed upon. There
is no mention made of a vernacular version of any of these pacts. In
854 we have the important treaty of Liége (Conuentus apud Leudt-
cam) between Lothar and Charles, in which Lothar guaranteed the
integrity of his brother’s realm against Ludwig the German, and
Charles made similar pledge to Lothar. The pact was solemnly con-
cluded in the cathedral of St Lambert and confirmed by a mutual
oath. “‘Le serment de Liége,”’ writes J. Calmette,? “‘pouvatt passer
pour étre la contre-partve du serment de Strassbourg.”’ Yet absolutely
nothing is said about a vernacular version of this oath in spite of
the important nature of the agreement.
1 Das Alter eines Wortes von seinem urkundlichen Sichtbarwerden schlechthin abhingig
machen zu wollen, ist zwar ein diplomatisch richtiges, aber eben darum ein auf der Oberfliche
sich haltendes Verfahren, welches der Geschichte der Sprache notwendig Gewalt antut.” F.
Diez, Grammatik der romantschen Sprachen ($d ed., Bonn a. Rh., 1870-72), I, $1.
2 La diplomatie carolingienne (Paris, 1901), p. 25.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 425
The first mention of use of the popular tongue after 842 occurs in
the treaty of Coblenz in 860 (Adnuntiatio apud Confluentes) between
Ludwig and Charles. We have the text of the twelve articles thereof,
together with that of the sacramentum firmatatis or oath, and the
confirmatory declaration (adnunttatio) in Latin made by each king,
Ludwig speaking in lingua theodisca, Charles speaking in lingua
romana.' The procedure was exactly like that at Strassburg in 842.
After Ludwig had made the declaration in German,
haec eadem domnus Karolus Romana lingua adnuntiauit, et ex maxima
parte lingua theodisca recapitulauit. Post haec, domnus Hludovicus ad
domnum Karolum fratrem suum lingua romana dixit: “Nunc, si uobis
placet, uestrum uerbum habere uolo de illis hominibus qui ad meam fidem
uenerunt”’ [i.e., Charles’s vassals who had deserted him in 858 and gone
over to Ludwig]. Et domnus Karolus excelsiori uoce lingua romana dixit:
[here follows Charles’s pledge]. . . . Et domnus Hlotharius lingua theodisca
in supra adnuntiatis capitulis se consentire dixit, et se obseruaturum illa
promisit. Et tunc domnus Karolus iterum lingua romana de pace com-
monuit.?
Here again, as in the event of 842, I believe that it is wrong to infer
that the words romana lingua imply the use of the ‘roman’ language.
I am convinced that they mean Mediaeval Latin, as at Strassburg
before. Charles probably recited the oath from a written text in
his hand.
In 870 theimportant treaty of Meersen was made between Charles
and Ludwig, in which the Middle Kingdom, created in 843 by the
partition of Verdun, was divided between them. If anything, this
settlement was more important than that in 843, for it put an end
to the amorphous and incongruous independent realm between Ger-
many and France, and gave sharper and juster definition to the
boundaries of each kingdom. The procedure at this time was/ not
only analogous to, it was identical with the practice followefl at
Verdun both in arrangement of preliminaries and in conclusjon.®
“The division was settled with cautious minuteness, and the sche dule
1 See Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. Krause, II, 157 f.
? For a clear account of these proceedings, see J. Calmette, op. ctt., pp. 65-67.
3 See J. Calmette, op. cit., pp. 128-27.
Ye
—
426 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
enumerates all the parcels, as a conveyancer would say.’’! But
unlike the treaty of Verdun, we have the whole of the actual text
of this partition-treaty in addition to contemporary accounts in the
Annals of St Bertin, the Annals of Fulda, and the Annals of Regino
of Priim. But not one word 1s said in any of them of the use of any
language except Latin. There is no evidence of either vernacular,
French or German, having been employed, or of the preservation of
the instrument in any language except Latin.
Six years later, after Charles the Bald’s disastrous defeat at An-
dernach (October 8, 876) by Ludwig the Young, the brilliant son of
the German king, peace was made at Aachen (January 9, 877) by
the terms of which Ludwig released the prisoners he had taken in
the battle of Andernach, and Charles indemnified in his own king-
dom those vassals in German Lorraine who had sustained him and
thereby forfeited their fiefs. In these negotiations, and in the final
settlement, it is certain that only Latin and German were used.
Several transcripts in German were made of the document and de-
posited in local archives, but not a word is said of any transcript in
Old French.? Why should Charles and Bald have taken such copies
in German unless the provinces north of the Loire which he ruled
were prevailmgly Germanic in language? This point is strengthened
by the fact that we know that the royal capitularies were sometimes
translated into German in the ninth century,’ whereas there is no
evidence of any capitulary ever having been translated into French.
If the Romance language was already so important in northern
Gaul in the middle of the ninth century as scholars have believed,
why is there no example of it among all these documents, or even
mention of such a thing in the chroniclers? If the Strassburg Oaths
were important enough in 842 to be preserved in both vernacular
languages, why have we positive evidence in other similar documents
as oa F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1919),
a Cutus sacramenti textus theutonica lingua conscriptus in nonnullis locis habetur,”
Annals of Fulda, anno 876. Evidently these copies were divided by the kings, each taking
several of them. .
* L. Vanderkindere, op. cit. supra, p. 211, n. 7. For a ‘‘uersio francica” see A. Boretius,
Caprtularia regum Francorum, I, 378. Compare Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, Sd ed.,
Ill, 623.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 427
of double form that Latin and German, not Latin and French or
German and French were used? And why is there no mention at all
of either vernacular in the treaty of Meersen in 870, a really far more
important settlement than that at Verdun?
I do not for a moment doubt that, in the words of Gaston Paris,
*‘ Nithard dut avoir les originaux mémes entre les mains,” but I cannot
go so far as he when he continues: “‘et cette ctrconstance triomphe de
la répugnance commune @ tous les clercs a écrire le pators des illettrés:
il les inséra tels quels dans son texte latin.” It is entirely probable
that Nithard was the redactor of the formulas used at Strassburg,
but the original form of the oath of Charles the Bald and his fideles
was in Latin, and I greatly doubt, for the argument advanced,
whether any vernacular form ‘en roman’ as clearly distinguished
from lingua rustica then existed. In the ninth century, as we have
seen,? Romance speech was not sufficiently prevalent north of the:
Loire river to make its use necessary, nor was the language yet
sufficiently developed to be made the vehicle of expression of legal
and political instruments so delicate and so important as those of
Strassburg in 842.
“Tl est vrat que Charlemagne et Louis le Preux rgnoratent la langue
romane et ne connatssaient que le teulon et le latin; mais de leur temps
le roman, peu avancé encore, pouvatt passer pour n’étre qu'une pro-
nonciation barbare et une syntaze vicieuse de la langue latine qu’un
homme de gotit devait éviler.”” These words are those of Ferdinand Lot,
and I entirely agree; but I find myself unable to go farther with him
— when I remember that Charlemagne died in 814 and Louis the
Pious in 840 — and believe that: “‘néanmoins, l'usage de cet 1diome
vulgaire devint bientét tellement indispensable, que Charles le Chauve et
méme Louis le Germanique durent le parler.”’* If the first part of this
proposition be a true statement, as it undoubtedly is, then the second
is impossible. Languages do not spring, they grow. In northern
France the time of differentiation of Old French from Vulgar Latin,
the time of the beginning of the triumphant overspread of the French
tongue, was in the tenth century and not in the ninth. The Stérass-
1 Miscellanea... in memoria di N. Caiz e U. A. Canello, p. 83.
2 p. 422, supra. 3 F. Lot, Les derniers Carolingiens, p. $09.
428 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
burg Oaths are valuable evidence for the birth of nascent feudalism
in France in the ninth century; they are not valid evidence for the
birth of a romance vernacular in northern France in the ninth cen-
tury; for the romana lingua had not yet emerged there.
The richness of historical evidence in the tenth century in this
matter is strikingly in contrast with the poverty of evidence in the
ninth century. Hugh Capet was certainly the first king of France
who did not understand German and spoke French only.!_ From the
time of the Capetians, the kings of Germany, the counts of Flanders,
and the dukes of Lorraine, when in France or conferring with the
French king, had to use interpreters.”
But what language did the later Carolingians speak? According
to Richer, an interview between Charles the Simple and Henry I of
Germany near Worms in 920, was broken up by a bloody quarrel
which arose between the suites of the two kings over diversity of
language.? But Richer wrote seventy years after this alleged incl-
dent. It is significant that Flodoard, who was contemporary, makes
no mention of such an event. Neither Eckel in his Le régne de
Charles le Simple, nor Parisot in Le royaume de Lorraine sous les
Carolingiens, notices Richer’s observation, and it cannot be given
any historical weight. In 948 at the council of Ingelheim, where
Louis d’Outre-Mer and Otto I of Germany were present, a letter
from the Pope, which neither could understand, was translated into
German.‘ But the case of Louis IV is unusual; for he was taken to
1 Lot, op. ctt., 308; Brunot, I, 326.
2 See the citation, circa, 1002, made by Thierry, op. cit., 214, note 2, from Mabillon,
Vetera Analecta (ed. 1725), 591. In the Chronicon S. Michaelis in pago Viridunensi (SS. IV,
82) we read that duke Theodoric of Upper Lorraine, a cousin of king Lothar, ‘* guoniam nouerat
eum in responsis acutissimum et linguae Gallicae peritia fucundissimum ...”” etc., which shows
that Lothar ({986) spoke French. Ferdinand Lot, Les dernters Carolingiens, appendix ii,
pp. 308-11, has not noticed this citation. Perhaps he omitted it as of dubious authority since
the chronicle was written about 1020.
Kurth’s statement, op. cil., pt. ii, 18-14, that “‘les Capétiens étaient au moins ausst ger-
maniques que les Carolingiens par Vorigine, les Carolingiens étatent au moins aussi romans que
les Capétiens par la langue” is absurd.
3“ Tinguarum idiomate offensi,” Richer, ed. cit., i, 20. Compare Lot, op. ctt., 309.
4 Ph. Lauer, Louts d’Outre-Mer, 182-83; Lot, op. cit., 308; Flodoard, Annales, 948. In this
time the vernacular was customarily employed in the deliberations of church councils, a fact
of interest in the history of mediaeval culture, Lot, Hugues Capet, 33, note. Most of the Ger-
man prelates at the council of Basel in 995 could speak French, thid., 91. Gerbert, in an
————
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 429
England after his father’s captivity in 923 where he was educated
at the court of his uncle, #thelstan, and did not return to France
until 936.!
There can be no doubt of the prevalence of the French tongue
over northern France by the middle of the tenth century, when —
and not in the ninth century — the German tongue disappeared.?
Even as far to the northeast as St Omer, if French did not yet pre-
vail, it was pressing hard upon the Flemish. Lotharingian borderers
spoke French and German with equal facility. Archbishop Fulk of
Rheims expressed the point of view of a romance-speaking person
when, in addressing Pope Formosus in a letter, he described the popu-
lation in the diocese of Thérouanne (St Omer) as ‘barbaricae feri-
tatis et linguae.’ ® :
I have endeavored to show the improbability of the western text
of the Strassburg Oaths having originally been written ‘en roman,’
and expressed the opinion that the original form of the Oaths was
interesting writing, has cast light upon the spirit and the method of translation then practised,
sometimes to translate word for word from one language into another, sometimes to adapt
the style to the vigor of thought and the rhetorical effect aimed at in the original. Finally |
he observes that a single word sometimes will convey a world of meaning. See Mon. Germ.
Hist., Scriptores, III, 658 f.; Lot, Hugues Capet, 38; J. Havet, Lettres de Gerbert (Paris, 1889),
Pp. XXIV—xxv.
1 Kurth, op. cit., pt. ii, 10, note 1, explains Louis’ familiarity with German by his long
residence at the Anglo-Saxon court. More judiciously M. Lauer observes:
“‘L’allemand ne devait pas étre cependant trés familier 4 Louis. I] n’avait pu |’apprendre
que depuis son mariage avec Gerberge. L’anglo-saxon qu’il pouvait savoir a cause de son
séjour en Angleterre était déja a cette époque trop éloigné de |’allemand pour qu’on pfit, en
le connaissant, comprendre un discours en allemand. Nous devons ce renseignement & l’obli-
geance de M. L. Duvau, directeur des conférences de philologie germanique a l’Ecole des Hautes
Etudes. D’ailleurs on connaissait peut-étre le francais & la cour d’Athelstan, car il existe des
manuscrits normands écrits en Angleterre avant 1066, et il se pourrait méme que Louis eit
ignoré l’anglo-saxon (op. cit., 183, note).”
Freeman, Historical Essays, 4th ser., p. 224, “The early sieges of Paris,” claims that the
last Carolingians never spoke anything but German, and calls Laon, their capital, a German
town. This is going too far. It is not admissible that Louis IV did not understand French.
2 But Vulgar Latin, as distinguished from Old French, seems still to have survived in
some quarters, Hist. litt. de France, VI, 3. We even find isolated and belated examples of
mixed patois and Vulgar Latin as late as 1200, A. Molinier, Les sources de ' histoire de France, II,
No. 1477. “‘When Teutonic went out of use in Gaul the two remaining languages of the
country were two states of the same language. French grew up, but the Latin out of which
it sprung was still remembered,” Freeman, Norman Conquest, V, 555. But the customary
name for the new language was not romana lingua, but lingua Gallica.
3 Flodoard, Historia Remensis Ecclesiae, iii, 3.
430 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
Latin. Historical conditions in the tenth century lend support to
this hypothesis. In the ninth century feudalism was incipient and
inchoate; it was in process of formation both as a political system
and a social structure. It was not until the tenth century that it
began to acquire fixity and to crystallize into a ‘system.’ Then it
was that the compact of lordship and homage, based upon mutual
fidelity, began to have form and became established in customary
law. Even then the process was of slow development, for the whole
era was one of transition. Feudalism had not yet found itself.' It
was not in the power of the last descendant of Charlemagne to estab-
lish political order in the midst of this chaos. But it cannot be truly
said that they were either indifferent to the condition or failed to
make the endeavor. Under these circumstances the feudal oath ac-
quired an enormous extension and importance in the tenth century.
The waning political authority of the kings tried to supplement its
weakness by moral obligation and the introduction of ‘honor’ as a
tie of attachment to the crown.’
But the legists and notaries of the tenth century were not only
interested in accurately recording these instruments in the vernacu-
lar, then everywhere dominant in France — they were legalistically
1 “TL insubordination et le gott batailleur des Francais étaient célebres dés cette époque. ..
Le lien vassalique . . . n’empéchait en rien |’anarchie féodale, mais en théorie il était tres
fort. ... I] est naturel que les formes survivent aux faits. .. . Jusqu’a la fin du régne de Charles
le Chauve la royauté garde un semblant d’autorité. Mais ce n’est qu’une facade. Elles’écroule
en 877... . Depuis lors, la royauté ne tient plus la vassalité dans sa main... . Elle est désormais
la seule force vivante de la société. Mais le roi n’est pas le chef effectif de la hiérarchie des
vassaux, ce régime de la vassalité conduit a ]"émiettement. . . . Si, en fait, !émiettement n’alla
pas du premier coup a Il’infini . . . la force de dissolution ne fut que retardée. Les douze ou
quinze grandes maisons entre lesquelles se partageait au X° siécle le territoire de la France
Occidentale furent, & leur tour, victimes du méme phénoméne psychologique qui avait ruiné
la royauté au siécle précedent, le détachement du vassal] de son seigneur, et leurs vassaux eux-
mémes eurent & subir la méme action de la part des arriéres-vassaux. ... Les relations vas-
saliques deviennent réelles, territoriales. . . . Si ces obligations n’avaient pas été de bonne
heure régularisées, limitées, adoucies, la féodalité eit probablement succombé.”
The above paragraph is formed from salient observations of Ferdinand Lot, Hugues
Capet, pp. 238-45.
2 A. Giry has pointedly observed that “1 est remarquable enfin que les plus anctens actes
qui nous aient conserré aux X° et XI° siécles des mots ou méme des phrases de la langue...
soient précisément des conrentions féodales et spécialement des actes d hommage, c’est-d-dire, des
engagements sous la foi du serment, et que les passages en langue rulgaire soient, presque tou-
jours, les termes mémes qut constituent [obligation jurée,”” Histoire de diplomatique, p. 465.
ane a — — = i —_ee———— —— - eg Se
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 431
and historically minded enough to search for precedents in the past,
and the initial example of such feudal oath, the earliest precedent,
was precisely the Strassburg Oaths. It is my conviction that it was
this search for precedents that for the first time created a keen inter-
est in the Strassburg Oaths, and that it was then that these oaths
originally recorded by Nithard in Latin were recovered by these
lawyers and translated into the vernacular of the tenth century.
We have an astonishing conformation of this hypothesis in actual
examples of feudal oaths ‘in wulgari lingua’ being translated into
formal Latin for official preservation in the archive. When Armoul,
natural son of King Lothar, was required in 989 to take the oath of
fidelity to Hugh Capet before qualifying as archbishop of Rheims,
the text of the oath of fidelity was in the vernacular. We learn this
from Gerbert’s account of the proceedings of the council of Saint
Basle, which was called two years later to try Arnoul for violation
of his oath.! A letter of Hugh Capet, written in 990 to Pope John XV
in regard to this affair, also sheds light upon the great importance
attached to the feudal oath in this time. For Hugh informs the pope
that Arnoul is plainly guilty of treason since “‘libellum fidelitatis sub
nomine chirographi conscripsit, recitaurt, corroborautt, corroborarique
fect.” Gerbert makes the same point in his letter of self-justifica-
tion to the bishop of Strassburg — for Gerbert was involved in the
affair.’
If the evidence so far adduced holds together and the reasoning
has weight, I think it possible to fix with some degree of probability
the actual time when the Strassburg Oaths in Nithard were trans-
lated by some notary or copyist from their original Latin form ‘en
roman.’ It was during the reign of Charles the Simple (898-923).
1 Addebat etiam de pactis et constitutis in uulgari lingua, Geurres de Gerbert, ed. A. Olleris
(Paris, 1867), p. 217. The Latin text of the oath is preserved in the same relation, p. 180, and is
reproduced by Richer, Historia, iv, 60, showing that Richer had access to the archives of
Rheims. It is a great misfortune that the vernacular version of the oath has not also been
preserved. 2 CGurres de Gerbert, 202.
8“). acceptis ab eo [Arnulfo} terribilibus sacramentis et libellari professione pro de suis
regibus conserranda, quam utra uoce in conuentu ecclestae recitauit et propria manu subscribendo
corroborauit,”’ Lettres de Gerbert, ed. Havet, No. 217, pp. 204-05. This interesting evidence is
cited by A. Giry, Histotre de diplomatique, p. 465, note 2. On p. 466 he shows that ver-
nacular usage was not uncommon in feudal oaths in the Midi in the first half of the tenth
century. But the case of Arnoul of Rheims is the earliest met with in the north.
432 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
Ever since the partitions of the ninth century, Lorraine has been
an object of covetous enterprise on the part of the western Carolin-
gians, and the feudality of that ‘middle border’ played fast and loose
between the kings of the East and the West. In 911 the last of the
lineage of Charlemagne in Germany died in the person of Louis the
Child, and a non-Carolingian king succeeded to the German throne
— Conrad I of Franconia. Charles the Simple was promptly called
into Lorraine by the revolted baronage there. From that time forth
Lorraine steadfastly remained loyal to Charles for and against all,
earlier against Conrad I and his successor, Henry the Fowler, later,
against Charles’s own rebellious vassal, Robert of Paris (922-23),
who dethroned Charles the Simple, and whose violation of his oath
of fidelity was an attack upon the fundamental nature of the feudal
régime.
Robert of Paris’s notorious action gave a new and acute impor-
tance to feudal oaths.
Charles in his quality as only survivor of the issue of Charle-
magne claimed real rights over Lorraine, where a rich cluster of
ancient Carolingian palatia were located, such as Aachen, Heristal,
Thionville, Gondreville and Metz.! Three times Charles blocked
the endeavors of Conrad of Germany to recover Lorraine for Ger-
many. More than twenty charters survive signed by Charles mn
these royal residences.
But the feudality of Lorraine was fickle and untrustworthy.
Kingship in the tenth century could barely hold its own against the
trespass and defiance of the nobles everywhere.
La fidélité, ce mot qui revient 4 chaque instant dans les textes, était
pour ainsi dire inconnue des hommes de ce temps; presque nulle part, on ne
rencontre chez ces rudes batailleurs un attachement sincére, un dévouement
loyal 4 la personne d’un souverain, Le roi, trahi et abandonné & chaque
instant par ses vassaux, est réduit a |’impuissance . . . Si l’on observe les
rapports qui ont existé entre le roi et les seigneurs féodaux, on est aussitét
frappé du grand nombre de défections et de trahisons dont Charles eut
a souffrir. . . . Tous ont trahi et abandonné tour a tour le malheureux
Carolingien.?
1 Cf. Diimmler, Gesch. d. Ostfrank. Reiches, III, 587 f.
2 A. Eckel, Charles le Simple (Paris, 1899), 18-14, 187.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 433
Now the earliest particular example of a feudal oath is that of
Strassburg. Is it going too far to reason that Charles the Simple, the
only survivor of the race of Charlemagne, in the political welter
around him, tried to employ the famous instrument used by his
grandfather in 842 in order to hold his kingdom together? I do not
think so. On the contrary, I believe that the circumstantial and in-
ferential evidence — for direct evidence fails us — is in favor of this
hypothesis.
The question of the copyist or copyists intermediate between
Nithard’s original manuscript and the manuscript of his History
which we have, has some bearing upon the hypothesis advanced in
this article. Koschwitz thinks one copyist to have been between
Nithard’s original and our present manuscript. Liicking admits
two copyists; Gaston Paris at first believed the manuscript “‘dzrecte-
ment transcrit sur l’'aulographe de Nithard,”’' but later changed his
mind and admitted the possibility of three copyists.2, Whether there
was one, or there were two or three — and I incline towards the
last — however, is not so important as to determine whether the
errors in the text of the oath were primarily due to the ignorance or
the carelessness of the copyists. Apparently some of the errors are
due to momentary lapse of a scribe, some of them to a failure to
understand what he was writing. It is difficult to determine the pro-
portions of these two kinds of errors. But it is certain that the
original manuscript has suffered greatly. Apparently, one scribe was
ignorant of what he was writing, another was careless, while the
third seems to have understood the text before him.’
And yet, some of the readings ascribed to ignorance may have
primarily risen from the exigencies of the parchment. It is a point
which I do not endeavor to resolve as to how far the false division
of words and the variant spelling of words in Nithard’s text are due
to ignorance of the copyists, or copyist, and how far due to the desire
of some scribe to save parchment. When two separate words are
found run together it may have been owing to a wish to economize
1 Romania XV (1886), 444. Compare Gasté, op. cif., p. 28, note.
2 Toynbee, Specimens of Old French, p. 2, note.
3 See the acute observations of E. Muret, Romania, XLVII (1921), 422.
434 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
space rather than to the scribe’s inability to understand what he was
copying. For example, if the column or page was narrow, it might
have been that an early scribe — when compelled to write a series
of short words and in consequence requiring a more than average
amount of space — wrote the words so close together that to the
careless or ignorant copyist who followed him they seemed to form
a single word. Is this the explanation of some of the singular and
even baffling combinations we find in the text? Is #% lostanit for
non los tanit? or non lo stanit? or non lenfraint? or non lo fraint? }
I think it is safer to infer that more of the errors in transcription
were due to inability of the copyist to understand what they were
copying than to carelessness. For the German text of the Strassburg
Oaths is remarkably accurate. But this at once raises new questions.
Did one of the scribes, presumably the first, understand German and
not know French or the Vulgar Latin which passed for it in the
ninth century? or was the Romance tongue a language as yet insufh-
ciently developed to be the vehicle of expression of so important a
political transaction? or was one of the scribes ignorant of German,
and so took pains with the German text he was copying, while he
was careless about the Romance text because he knew the language?
The remarkable accuracy of the German text is disconcerting to
the advocate of an early (ninth-century) Romance speech, unless he
is to take refuge in the opinion that the French language developed
so rapidly out of Vulgar Latin that a copyist of a later generation
was unable to understand the language of a previous generation.
But if this be so, why have we so few monuments of so potent and
virile a language? I am all the more driven to the conclusion that
the text of the Strassburg Oaths, as we have it, is of tenth-century
origin.
The great formative period of the Old-French language, when it
sprang free from Vulgar Latin, was in the tenth and eleventh cen-
turies, not in the ninth. The history of Mediaeval Latin in these cen-
turies— and it must be remembered that Latin was a living language
in the Middle Ages, subject to organic changes — may cast light.
Now the monkish compiler of the Cartulaire de St.-Pére, who lived
1 See Férster and Koschwirtz, Altfrz. Ubungsb., p. 47, for various proposals.
caer ec ae a e_cap gee gee —
te, Gis gig -” —_ ae ee _—
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 435
in the eleventh century, speaks in this wise of charters of the ninth
century, which were found in the archives of the Abbé de St Pére:
Those words which were used in former time seem to differ somewhat
from present usage. For the written rolls of the past now found in our
library show that the peasants of that time did not have customs in the
matter of revenues which modern rustics in this time are understood to
have; nor do the words for things now have the same meaning which the
vulgar speech then had... . I have found the written record of certain
places, of which now the very names have disappeared and are unknown.!
Lambert of Ardres makes a similar observation in the late twelfth
century.? The unknown compiler of the Chroniques de Saint-Dénrs
was so puzzled by the German place-names in the text of the treaty
of Meersen (870) that he omitted most of them, for he was unable
to Gallicize them.’
I have raised the point as to whether the original form of the
Strassburg Oaths may not have been in Mediaeval Latin, but have
deferred examination of the internal evidence afforded by the text
as we have it, seeking first to consider the external evidence. There
is some ground, on internal evidence also, I think, to argue in favor
of an original Latin form of the Oaths, as Nithard had the text before
him and transcribed it in his history. The preservation of purely
Latin phrases in the text has struck many commentators, but it has
not been so clear to many that these phrases are technical legal
terms which reflect the Carolingian capitularies, e.g., ‘an damno
sit... stcul frater fratrt per rectum facere debet ... sicut uersus
frater uero fratra per rectum esse debet.”” Perhaps we have other
evidence of an original Latin base for the Oaths in the position of
the verbs dunat and conseruat, as in Latin, when the writer is not
1 Ea quae primo (uerba) . . . a praesenti usu admodum discrepare uidentur; nam rolli
conscripti ab antiquis et in armario nostro nunc reperti, habuisse minime ostendunt illius
temporis rusticos has consuetudines in reditibus quos moderni rustici in hoc tempore dinos-
cuntur habere; neque habent uocabula rerum quas tunc sermo habebat uulgaris. ... Quaedam
loca scripta inueni, quorum nunc nomina ita sunt abolita, et innota. Cited by B. Guérard,
Prolég., Polyptique d’Irminon (Paris, 1844), p. 502.
2 Chronicon Ghisnense et Ardense (918-1203), c. 187.
3 Maintes autres villes et citéz ne sont pas ici nommées, pour ce que les noms sont en
langue Thyoyse, ov |’on ne peut assigner propre Frangois. Cited by Palgrave, op. cit. 1, 370.
436 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
influenced by any special intention to change the structure of the
sentence. Our great incertitude as to the nature of both Vulgar
Latin and the earliest French makes one wonder when and to what
degree Vulgar Latin had to be broken down and to lose its genius
in order to become transformed into French. We find saluaraz
from the fusion of saluare with the auxiliary habeo, and prindraz
from prehendere + habeo. But was such combination made so early
as 842? The Ste Eulalie, which is certainly at least fifty years later
still, has Deus satisfacere habet, with the sense of futurity. Again can
om or pots be possible before at least the tenth century? I doubt
it. Or drew, even if we do find drictum in 802?! Or fazet, when the
Chanson de Roland, v. 750, still has facet? Or dist (decet)? Decet
would give dist as decem has given diz. But then decet must by this
time have lost its Latin construction. Nor can I believe that the
form ‘‘Ab Ludher” in the sense of later avec (= apud hoc =ap + hoc,
or ab + hoc, whence avoec = avec) can have been ninth-century lin-
guistic usage.
Evidence like this, it seems to me, argues for an original Latin
base for the text of the Strassburg Oaths, and point to later conversion
of the text into French. With the exception of proper-names there
is no word in the text which is not Latin or a Latin derivative. The
Romance language of the ninth century in northern France assuredly
“‘did not shake itself clear of Latin,” ? to use Mr Paget Toynbee’s
phrase, so rapidly as is often supposed.
It is beyond the province of this article to discuss the text of the
Strassburg Oaths linguistically; yet perhaps I may be justified in
making some observations in the nature of historical criticism of the
various suppositions advanced in regard to the dialect thereof. Al-
most every linguistic criterion has been applied by one scholar and
another to elucidate the text, yet without avail. It is as E. Muret
admits: ““L’on est prét a confesser que tous nos raisonnements sur ce
texte ne sont que des tatonnements dans les ténébres.”* Suchier,
following a suggestion of Meyer-Ltibke, has argued that the dialect
1 E. Baluze, Capitularta regum Francorum, I, $77.
2 Toynbee, Specimens of Old French, p. 1.
3 Romanta, XLVII (1921), 426.
The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths 437
is that of the Lyonnaise.' But a fatal argument against this hypo-
thesis is that it can be historically shown that the Lyonnaise was
strongly against Charles and politically in favor of Lothar. Kosch-
witz has endeavored to identify the dialect as Poitevin, to which
Gaston Paris has objected on philological grounds. And here, again,
it can be historically demonstrated that Charles the Bald’s following
in this quarter was negligible. Gaston Paris, who was an historian
as well as a philologist, with better judgment has expressed his opin-
ion in favor of the dialect in the vicinity of Pontieu.? Diez thought
the dialect to be Walloon.? Brunot thinks it probably Picard, as did
DuCange in the seventeenth century and Bonamy in the eighteenth.
When experts in linguistics so widely disagree, perhaps one who
is not a philologist but an historian, may venture to make a sugges-
tion. It is significant that the political adviser of Charles the Simple
was Richard, duke of Burgundy,‘ and that his death in 921 coincides
with the beginning of the troubles which culminated in Charles’s
ruin. Is there a possibility that the Strassburg Oaths are cast in the
Burgundian dialect, to which the dialects of East Champagne and
Lorraine have affiliations? As we have seen, Charles the Simple had
a strong party in Lorraine and deep interests, political and economic,
there. In fact, as his itinerary shows, most of his life was spent in
Burgundy and Lorraine.®
1 Festgabe fiir Wendelin Foerster, 199. Cf. Romania, XXXI (1902), 615 f. Suchier is
gravely in error when he says that Charles the Bald habitually spoke French. The evidence
is heavily against such a proposition. Suchier has misread Lot’s Les derniers Caroltngiens,
pp. 808 f.
2 Cf. Miscellanea ... in memoria di Catz e Canello, p. 77. Gaston Paris in this article
admits a very significant doubt. He seems to have had some misgivings of Nithard’s author-
ship, for he writes: ‘Si cependant on admet que Nithard en fut auteur,” etc. When I came
upon that sentence, it gave me encouragement and refreshment, for it shows that a very
great scholar harbored a sense of doubt and uncertainty about the text of the Strassburg
Oaths, although M. Paris never pursued his thought any farther.
3 But in Walloon a before a nasal, when preceded by i, yields te, as in the word Christzen,
according to Suchier, Festgabe Mussafia, p. 664, who advances this as evidence of the Walloon
origin of the Ste Eulalie, the St Léger, and the homily on Jonas. In Nithard, however, this
word is spelled Christian, and misspelling of such a word would be least likely. Thus it seems
to me that the dialect of the Strassburg Oaths, independently of historical reasons, cannot
be Walloon.
4 Ipse namque uizit, Carolo regi semper fidelis exstitit, Chron. S. Benigni Div. 921. Cf.
Eckel, op. cit., 58-59, 65-66, 70 and especially 116.
5 See Eckel, op. cif., 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 94, 97, 118, 119.
438 The Romance Text of the Strassburg Oaths
Mere textual criticism cannot solve the riddle of the Slrassburg
Oaths. The weakness of much of the criticism so far applied is that
it is too purely linguistic; the commentators have had insufficient
historical knowledge. This appears in Koschwitz’s and Liicking’s
theory of a Poitevin dialect and in Meyer-Ltibke’s and Suchier’s
theory of a Lyonnaise dialect. The historical facts are destructive of
these hypotheses. On the other hand, the historical, i.e. political
facts, are in favor of a Burgundo-Lotharingian dialect. Linguistics,
palaeography, textual criticism, and history hang together in almost
every intricate and difficult problem in mediaeval history, but this is
a lesson which both historians and philologists have been slow to
learn. When they are combined, new values may appear and old
things become new.
The University of Chicago.
NOTES
a
*“TABLES’ IN MEDIAEVAL CHURCHES
TEN years ago, while discussing the curious fifteenth-century legend of
St Wulfhad and St Ruffin, I called attention! to the ‘table’ on which
it is said to have been written. In the following year I considered the
matter in more detail,? incidentally correcting one or two minor mis-
statements, and gathering what evidence I could find with regard to the
mural display of verse. The legend,’ I may recall, came from Stone Priory,
an Augustinian house in Staffordshire, and was originally “written in a
table”’ on the epistle side of the choir in the priory church. Near it was
another “‘table,’’ recounting the foundation of the house and its bene-
factors down to the time of Henry IV, the verses on which by good fortune
have been preserved in Dugdale’s Monasticon.4 Across the choir was
another table, which seems to have been inscribed with the names of the
lords who followed William I from Normandy.
Although I found reference in an inventory of St George’s, Windsor,
from 1384, of a tabula lignea stans super parvum altare in parte boreali, ex
opposito summo altari, cum platis et imaginibus cuprets deauratis, continens
passionem S. Georgit,> I was unable to understand the nature of a ‘table’
large enough to contain a set of verses running to three hundred and
eighty-two lines, which is the length of St Wulfhad and St Ruffin. Another
inscription of twenty-nine stanzas in rhyme royal, which appears to have
served as a guide to the tombs in Wirkesop Priory, Nottinghamshire, is
also preserved in Dugdale.®
Doubtless I ought to have discovered, though I failed to do so, references
to the ‘magna tabula’ of Glastonbury, of which a description may be
found in the very interesting and valuable little volume just published by
Dean Robinson of Wells.? This Glastonbury table, preserved in Naworth
Castle, “told in full the stories of St. Joseph of Arimathea and of King Arthur,
of St. Patrick and his charter, of the translation of St. Dunstan, and much
1 Saints’ Legends (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), pp. 273-5.
? “The Legend of St. Wulfhad and St. Ruffin at Stone Priory,” Publ. Mod. Lang. Ase.,
XXXII (1917), 323-337.
3 Ed. C. Horstmann, Altenglische Legenden, N. F. (Henninger, 1881), pp. 808-314, from
MS. Cotton Nero, C. xii. 4 Ed. 1846, VI, 230-1.
§ Ibid., VI, 1364. 6 Ibid., V1, 122-124.
7 J. Armitage Robinson, Two Glastonbury Legends: King Arthur and St. Joseph of Ari-
mathea (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1926), pp. 41-2.
439
440 Notes
besides.”” According to the elaborate account of it by Mr J. A. Bennett,'
quoted by Dean Robinson:
It was a folding wooden frame, 3 ft. 8 in. in height, and 8 ft. 6 in. in breadth
when opened flat, containing two wooden leaves somewhat smaller, so that they
may fold within the outer case when closed, like the pages of a book. All the six
interior faces are covered with MS written upon parchment affixed to the surface
of the wood. There are three pairs of nail holes in the upper, and four pairs in the
lower edges of the frame, upon the left hand only. These seem to show that it was
affixed to a wall in such a way that it might be opened out as a book. The whole
MS takes up about sixty pages, clearly written, of ordinary exercise book size.
The ‘magna tabula’ thus explains very clearly how such inscriptions
as those from Stone Priory, Windsor, and Wirkesop Priory were displayed
for the benefit of visitors. Dean Robinson remarks that the Glastonbury
inscription appears to have been taken from John of Glastonbury’s History,
except for the closing section. He reproduces, I may add, the photograph
provided by Mr Bennett. My excuse for this note is the probability that
similar tables were not uncommon in the fourteenth and fifteenth cen-
turies. The existence of them, it seems to me, should be known to medi-
aevalists generally, as may well not be the case.
1 Somersetshire Archaeological Society’s Proceedings, XXXIV (1888), 117 ff.
Gorpon Hau GEROULD,
Princeton University.
A NOTE ON THE SCHOOL PRONUNCIATION
OF LATIN IN ENGLAND
THE Brevissima Institutio, a portion, usually with a separate title-page, of
that composite work known as Lily’s Latin Grammar, offers some interesting
remarks on the school pronunciation of Latin in England. The pertinent
section, de Orthoepra (foll. A3’-A4”), is here reprinted from the Huth copy
in the British Museum, of which the title-page reads: Brevifsima/Inftitutio/
sev Ratio/Grammatices/cognofcende, ad omnium/puerorum vtilitatem pre-/
feripta, quam folam Re-/gia Maieftas in omnibus /Scholis proficendam/ pre-
cipit./ Ezxcvfym Lon-/dini, per afsignatio-/nem Francifa/Flore./ M. D.
EXXXXVI. The text itself, apart from the title-page, does not appear to
differ from other copies there of 1577 and 1602. The Brevissima Institutio
is not included in the reprint of Lily’s Grammar by Dr S. Blach (Jahrb. d.
deutschen Sh.-ges., XLIV (1908), 65-117; XLV (1909), 51-100). On its his-
tory Foster Watson, English Grammar Schools to 1660 (Cambridge, 1908),
pp. 243 ff., remarks: “It is not certain when it was first issued, but it was
in existence by 1574.” The passage quoted from John Hart below testifies
Notes 44]
to its existence in 1569. See also J. H. Lupton, A Life of pen Colet (Lon-
don, 1887), pp. 21-39.
DE ORTHOEPIA.
Orthographie affinis eft Orthoépia, hoc eft, emendaté rectéque loquendi ratio.
Ab 6p6és rectus, & éos verbum.
Htc in primis curandum eft, vt preeceptores tenera ac balbutientia puerorum
ora fic effingant & figurent, ne vel continua lingue volubilitate ita fermonem preci-
pitent, vt nufquam, nifi vbi fpiritus deficit, orationem claudant: vel contra, ad
fingulas quafque voces longa interfpiratione confilefcant, ructu, rifu, fingultu,
{creatu, vel tufsi, fermonis tenorem inepté dirimentes.
Ceeterum ante omnia deterrendi funt pueri ab ijs vitijs, que noftro vulgo pené
propria efse videntur, cuiufmodi funt, Iotacifmus, Lambdacifmus, Ifchnotes,
Traulifimus, Plateafmus, & fimilia.
Iotacifmus dicitur quando IJ litera, pleniore fono, & fupra iuftum decorem ex-
tenditur: quo vitio ex noftratibus maximé laborant Angli feptentrionales.
Lambdacifmus, eft vbi quis L nimis operosé fonat: vt Ellucet, pro elucet.
Sauluus, pro faluus. Noftrati vulgo diuerfum vitium impingitur, nempe qudd hanc
literam pinguids iufto pronficiant, dum
Multus, Moultus
ro < Mollis, auditur Moolis.
Falfus, Faulfus.
Ifchnotes, eft queedam loquendi exilitas, quoties fyllabas aliquas exilits &
graciliis enunciamus quam per eft: vt chm
Nunc, Nync,
pro rae proferimus, Tyne,
iquis, Eliquis,
Alius, Elius.
| Traulifmus, eft, heefitantia qusedam aut titubantia oris, quando eadem fyllaba
feepids repetitur: vt Cacacanit, pro canit. Tututullius, pro Tullius.
Huic vitio vt foedifsimo, ita & periculofifsimo, fic fuccurrendum putat Fabius: fi
exigatur a pueris, vt nomina & verfus affectate difficultatis, ex plurimis & afper-
rimis inter fe coéuntibus fyllabis concatenatis, ac velut confragofis, quam citifsimé
voluant:, vt, Arz, tridens, roftris, fphinz, prefter, torrida, feps, ftriz.
—poftquam difcordia tetra
Belli ferratos poftes, portasque refregit.
Plateafmus, eft quando crafsids & voce plufquam virili loqui nitimur: vt cdm
Montes, Mountes,
pro 4 Fontes, efferimus, Fountes,
Pontes, Pountes.
Ergo, Argo,
Vt etiam pro ; Sperma, efferimus, Sparma,
Perago,
Sunt & alibi apud noftrates, qui pro V confonante fonant F : & contra, V pro
F : vt
442 Notes
Folo, Volo,
Fis, Vis,
Folui, Pre Volui,
Felle, | Velle.
Vero, Fero,
Et rurfum, ;{ Vers, pro { Fers,
Verre, Ferre.
S, verd mediam inter duas vocales corrupté fonant nonnulli,
Leefus, Lezus.
pro 4 Vifus, pronunciantes, 4 Vizus.
Rifus, Rizus.
H, in initio dictionis lenids, in medio afperids enunciari volunt: malé ergd
Homo, Omo,
Hamus, Amus,
Humus, Vmus,
Chriftus, Criftus,
pro Crihfma, efferimus, Crifma,
Chremes, Cremes.
Thus, Tus,
Diphthongus, Diptdgus,
Sphera, Speera.
Foedé quoque erratur a noftris, vbi t, & d, tanquam afpiratas pronunciant:
Amath, Amat,
vt Caputh, pro Caput,
Aputh, Apud.
At innumera pené funt huius generis vitia, que bonarum literarum candidatis,
& preceptorum diligentizs: emendanda relinquimus.
It is not necessary to discourse at length on all the faults here held up
for correction — in general the result of an English, possibly in part a
French, type of pronunciation, as opposed to a theoretical type based on
spelling. One or two points, however, deserve remark.
Under Plateasmus appears the basis of Shakespeare’s argal (Ham. V, 1.
12 ff.) and argo (2 Hen. 6, IV, ii, 31) for ergo; likewise of such a rhyme as
Skelton’s :
As it is res certa
Conteyned in Magna charta.
(Colyn Cloute, vv. 720-21.)
Of the fault of turning final ¢ into th, John Hart in his Orthographie
(1569, fol. N4") speaks as if it were already an old one,' “‘as is plainly said
in the orthography of the grammar, which notwithstanding I fear me
some of mine elders being brought up therein will think they cannot speak
better now then they did when they were young, especially that which they
Cf. O. Jespersen, John Hart's Pronunciation of English (Angl. Forsch. Hf. 22), pp. 25-26.
$ alter ur nn Lt -171 pele
T ofl oyu a nulliura ‘UT til 1 lc mo imawos
L nchenat noua ellidiett dolos i}
1" thre qua timer fide oeitpire Pe his,
*e
Pr :
P otanc difaale pbiixt undau.a ay .
stabs becdoant qua fixpru dena amin,
4 1 “ceptil uoluct
;
"Pp Lic fle op Er £
© Yertties- Ftussenco
/ tcLarecufors$ clerlign ung” Luueney§ | aa
fpa mordic fiub feclere colLaiige - ss
BR uphailebliqua facades cornuafalcr
C reciiuchte infin defremui fe pe cf es
q Autuf unmfo eure tet th. A
fi
MY Aq-erat biccor nu.pomaor: tery pee F
S , ly CT TT é
eT I Longe piberer i bitemo -, “=
Meuehic tuf fale unguLic cudderal - -*
» ed pof} bout tir denac tan uinailagllo;
~ >
|
| TTLeTITA aa cil ce frrigat burt + ae
Conniua en fa perlibr difp gi ENA +9
Qua ferufined: eraser arte Le
Vosstaxus Latinus 0.89 (Leyden), saec. xi-xil. Fol. Qtr.
Avianus, Fabulae, 27, 4-28, 12.
Notes 443
learned in the grammar school.” The fault appears to be as old as Skelton’s
time:
Ma gni fi cat
Shewe me the ryght path.
(Phyllyp Sparowe, vv. 245-46).
If this trick of the schools was practised in Chaucer’s day, it would serve,
in the description of the Sumnor, to make a good rhyme of what has
generally been regarded as a rather desperate makeshift:
For curs wol slee, right as assoilling saveth —
And also war him of a significarit.
(C. T., A 661-62)
One would expect the Brevissima Institutio to say something about a type
of pronunciation that produced such rhymes as Skelton’s
Ecce, sacerdos, magnus
that will hed vs and hange vs.
(Why come ye not to Courte? vv. 1150-51)
as well as the English rhyme kynge: benygne (Erle of Northumberlande,
vv. 167-68). Something like it seems to be noted in William Bullokar’s
Booke at Large (London, 1580): ‘“‘The ingnorant mangnifie the ingnomin-
ious” (in reprint by Max Plessow, Palaestra LII (1906), 276).
Harry Morean Ayres,
Columbia University.
AN ANGULAR FORM OF A RARE ABBREVIATION FOR ‘-S’
SoME years ago L. Delisle ! published a note upon the ordinary form of the
abbreviation for —us when employed to designate not —us but only —s,
supplementing his own collections by those of DeVries and Traube.? The
phenomenon was found to occur principally, but not exclusively, in manu-
scripts written in northern France from the eleventh to the thirteenth
century.
I have observed a further variation upon this symbol in a Leyden
manuscript, Vossianus Latinus 0.89, saec. xi—xii, of French origin, at one
time in the Petau library, and containing Cato, Avianus, Homerus pevaius,
and Theodulus.®
1 “De l’Emploi du Signe abbreviatif 9 4 la Fin des Mots,” Bébl. de [ Ecole des Chartes,
LXVII (1906), 591-2.
2 Fifteen manuscripts are there listed, nine by Traube and three each by Delisle and
DeVries.
3 This manuscript has been used and partially described and discussed by L. Miiller,
Neue Jahrbiicher, LXXXV (1862), 729-32; E. Baehrens, Poetae Latini Minores (Leipzig,
1881), III, 6; F. Vollmer, “Zum Homerus Latinus,” Suzungsber. der Miinchener Akad., 1918,
8; M. Boas, Mnemos, XL (1914), 28; 31f. Miller dates it saec. xii-xiii, Vollmer saec. xi,
Baehrens, Molhuysen, and Beeson, the last named from photographs only, saec. xii.
4.44 Notes
The details of the actual employment of the symbol in the form 7 may
be summarized as follows:
la. Above a letter it ordinarily stands for —s. 1,8 credulu = credulus;
1,4 fore = fores, etc. Instances of this use occur in almost every line.
It is interesting to observe that a late corrector (possibly in the fourteenth
century) misunderstood the sign and wrote in an s after the final letter;
thus at 19,1; 20,1; 25,14 (bis); 26,8 (ter); 28,3 and 8, etc. Double s is written
thus: 1,18 poset = posset, etc.
b. Occasionally, however, it stands for —us: 1,3 lup = lupus; 4,10
sinh = sinus; 9,8 on = onus; 11,5 mot = motus; 19,5 corp = corpus; 20,4
uuln = uulnus; 27,10 op = opus. After the letter b it is written on the
line: 4,1 feb7 = febus; 16,1 Montib7 = Montibus, etc. See below under
2a.
c. Rarely it stands for —m (although a waving horizontal stroke above
the letter is the sign ordinarily employed): 19,11 guide = quidem, and so
probably 19,5 deduct: = deductum, and 35,8 contéptu (sic) = contemp-
tum; for these are the endings required by the context.
d. Twice it stands for -1s: Epistle 27 (Froehner) anim = animis, and
18,18 acerh = acerbis, where no other form is possible.
2a. On the line it stands for —us: 4,1 feb7 = febus: 5,14 umberib7 (sic)
= umberibus (for uerberibus); 16,1 Montib7 = Montibus; 23,7 mercib7
= mercibus; 32,9 uirib7 = uiribus.
b. Occasionally it represents —ue after g: 1,13 g7 = que (bis); 2,9 q7trt
= querit; 7,15 q7 =que, etc. Sometimes, however, the beginning of the
horizontal stroke has a slight hook when the symbol is used in this sense,
thus in 20,14 queritur; 22,7 queque, 22,18 inuidieque, etc.
c. At least once it stands for —et: 21,7 proib7 (sic) = proibet (for
prohibet). The very similar symbol for et, as in tit. 16; tit. 25; tit. 26;
26,6; tit. 28, etc., differs only in having a club or hook at bottom of the
down-stroke.
The text of Avianus and of the Homerus Latinus is badly interpolated,
and in Avianus, at least, full of blunders in spelling; so that the attempt
to institute a sort of general symbol of abbreviation, if original with the
author of this manuscript, can hardly have had back of it any sound scholar-
ship, and is, therefore rather to be regarded as a personal vagary in one of
the less famous scriptoria.!
W. A. OLDFATHER,
The University of Illinois.
1 In matters of content and text our manuscript is closely related to Laur. Ixviii, 28, saec.
xi, which latter is probably connected with Fleury, but this fact throws little if any light upon
its immediate origin.
Notes 445
YET ANOTHER NOTE IN REPLY TO A FURTHER NOTE
ON A NOTE
THE interesting case of Giraldus Cambrensis, adduced by Professor Haskins
in SpEcuLUM, I, 221, would not seem to have been a ceremonious public
recital in quite the same sense as those described from thethirteenth century.
Although Giraldus uses the phrase solemniter recitata, he does not claim to
have been crowned with the laurel or otherwise officially approved. The
reading of the Topographia Hibernica appears to have been arranged en-
tirely on his own initiative,! and he received his audience at his hostel,
whereas Buoncompagni, at least, recited his work in the cathedral. Giral-
dus, moreover, invited “the doctors of the different faculties” only to the
reading of the second distinction of his work which took place on the second
day. Indeed, in another passage which Professor Haskins does not cite,?
Giraldus states that the envious attacks upon his Topographia were limited
to the first and third distinctions,*? with which he had entertained “‘all the
poor of the whole town,’’‘ and the less distinguished students, together with
knights, townsmen, and burghers. He does not mention any high digni-
taries individually as present at any of the readings. If, however, his re-
citals were more informal and promiscuous than either strictly public or
private, possibly they may be of the more importance as showing us in
embryo a practice that soon became better regulated.
Another example of the public reading of a new work in a mediaeval
university was when Henry of Mondeville read his Surgery at Paris “in the
schools” before ‘‘a very large and most noble company of students in medi-
cine and of intellectuals.” 5 But here we may have a closer approach to
a lecture course than in our other examples, although the presence of others
than students of medicine suggests a special occasion. There is still another
point on which I would supplement my original note. It is a rather remark-
able coincidence that one of the three authors named as giving these public
recitals should have received his doctorate at the hands of another of the
1 This may have been the case with the thirteenth-century readings, but it does not appear
on the surface.
2 Expugnatio Hibernica, Opera, V, 209.
® Idem: “Scholastici stili elegantiae omnium unica laus est, et uniformis: primae Distinc-
tion! et tertiae livor, contra naturam in laudem erumpens, oblatrare tam verecundatur quam
veretur.”’
4 Rashdall interpreted this as referring to “‘poor scholars.”
§ “*Cum scolarium in medicina et aliquorum intelligentium maxima et nobilissima comi-
tiva’: quoted by the Histoire Littératre de la France, XX VII (1881), 828, from Latin MS. No.
7139 of the Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, fol. 133.
446 Notes
three. Rolandinus of Padua so received the doctoral laurel in 1221 from
Buoncompagni.!
Turning to other points raised by Professor Haskins, I feel that he has
put an interpretation upon my note which it will not bear, in stating that
I “‘appear to argue that history was taught at the University of Padua
since Rolandinus read an historical treatise there in 1262.” But where did
even a vernacular writer of the thirteenth century, like Jean de Meun, get
his knowledge of the past? From private reading perhaps. Then why in
the Roman de la Rose, after Reason has listed an inordinate number of his-
torical examples,? does she reprove the lover for having forgotten his
“Homer” and the other books he has studied?* Does this not suggest
that history had a certain place in mediaeval education, although perhaps
in connection with or under the cover of “grammar” and other subjects,
and perhaps even in grammar schools before the student went on to a
university? Giraldus suggests a similar association of his Topographia
with the field of grammar and rhetoric, or Latin literature, by asserting
that his recital revived “the ancient times of the poets.”
In regard to the question by Professor Haskins about the teaching of
geography, in the first place I doubt if geography is the main theme of
the Topographia. Its primary interest seems rather to be in marvels of
natural history and miracles. Surely neither of these was wholly excluded
from mediaeval instruction. In this connection it may be worth noting that
1 “Certo é che Rolandino da Padova ricevette da lui nel 1221 la laurea dottorale; cid che
dimostra come Buoncompagno avesse ripreso l’antico posto fra i maestri dello Studio”:
A. Gaudenzi, Sulle opere dei dettatort bolognesi, in Istituto Storico Italiano, Bullettino, XIV,
(Roma, 1895), 111.
2 Cf. ed. E. Langlois, vv. 6412-6776.
3 In the English translation by F. S. Ellis the lover is specifically said to have studied
history:
’Fore God I count it shame to thee
That, having studied history,
Thou ne’ertheless hast clean forgot
Examples which thou well shouldst wot (vv. 7159-62);
but this seems unsupported by the French text which, in Langlois’s edition (Vou. III, 1921),
runs as follows:
D’autre part, je tieng a grant honte,
Puis que tu sez que letre monte,
Et qu’a estudier te couvient,
Quant il d’Homer ne te souvient,
Puis que tu ]’as estudié;
Mais tu |’as, ce semble, oublié.
Et n’est ce peine vaine et vuide?
Tu mez es livres ton estuide,
Et tout par négligence oublies!
Que vaut quanque tu estudies (vv. 6777-86).
Notes 44:7
the tale of the toad and the emerald in one of the works of Albertus Magnus
on the Aristotelian natural philosophy ! is anticipated by a similar story
recounted by Giraldus (Topographia Hibernica, I, xxxi) of a toad which
was unable to cross a leathern thong from Ireland with which it was
encircled, and escaped only by retiring to the center of the ring and bur-
rowing into the earth. As for geography in a stricter sense of the word, it
would certainly seem to have been taught to some extent in mediaeval
schools. For the Franciscan, Bartholomaeus Anglicus, who lectured both
at Paris and in the school of his Order at Magdeburg, devoted to physical
and political geography the fourteenth and fifteenth books of his de Pro-
prietatibus Rerum, a work which seems to have been intended and to have
served as a text-book.”
1 De veget. et plantis, vi, 2, 1; or see my History of Magic and Experimental Science, I,
546-7.
2 See my History of Magic and Experimental Science, II, 402-8, 405-6, 424-5.
Lynn THORNDIKE,
Columbia University.
IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS SILLABIZAT
In a witty little passage at the expense of lawyers John of Salisbury com-
ments on their ability to ensnare the unwary in nooses of words and sylla-
bles. He declares that simple-minded folk are lost if they learn not this art
of ‘syllabizing.’ His words are:
Sed et leges ipsae et consuetudines quibus nunc uiuitur, insidiae sunt et laquei
calumpniantium. Uerborum tendiculae proponuntur et aucupationes sillabarum;
uae simplici qui silabizare non nouit! !
Part of his wit John owes to Cicero. As is well known he bequeathed a
copy of de Officits and de Oratore to the cathedral library at Chartres.?
The books are not found among those treasured in the library at Chartres
today. Certainly, however, as Mr Webb has made clear, John knew both
of these works of Cicero and used them abundantly in his works. It has
apparently escaped Mr Webb’s attention that the passage quoted above
is inspired by Cicero’s remarks in de Oratore, i, 55, 236: |
Ita est tibi luris consultus ipse per se nihil nisi leguleius quidam cautus et acutus,
praeco actionum, cantor formularum, auceps syllabarum; sed quia saepe utitur
orator subsidio iuris in causis, idcirco istam iuris scientiam eloquentiae tamquam
ancillulam pedisequamque adiunxisti.
1 Policraticus, V, 16. The italics are mine.
2 Joannis Saresbertensis ... Policraticus siue de Nugis Curialium et Uestigits Philosophorum
libri VIII, ed... . C. C. I. Webb (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909), I, xxix.
448 Notes
Despite all that has been done, it might be profitable to read through John
of Salisbury again with Cicero particularly in mind. He knew his ancients
well and imitated them in an original — one might as well call it a modern —
way. In the present instance he has enriched Mediaeval Latin with a new
word, a little arrow of sarcasm for the target of the Law: ‘to syllabize.’
E. K. Ranpb.
LIBER DE COLORIBUS: ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA
Wiru reference to the date and provenance of the Liber de Colorzbus
Illuminatorum siue Pictorum, from MS. Sloane 1754, which appeared in
the third number of Specutum,! Mr Sydney C. Cockerell of the Fitzwilliam
Museum (Cambridge, England) has kindly sent me the following significant
comment: ‘I should date the script at not far from 1300,” he writes, “and
so would Mr Eric Millar of the British Museum, who has looked at the
original MS before giving an opinion, whereas I have only looked at the
facsimile. Mr Millar adds that he takes it to be English.”
The following notes in the same hand as the principal text appear at
the foot of folios 146v and 147r respectively (a third note, at the foot of
149r, 1 have not yet fully interpreted).
Cementum optimum ad coniungendum marmoreas lapides. Accipe caseum
salsum non nimis antiquatum et cinde in minuta frusta et pone in aquam frigidam
per quattuor uel quinque horas ad temperandum. Deinde accipe calcem uiuam
et extingue eam cum predicta aqua, et mole calcem cum illo caseo super marm(o)-
rem ad spissitudinem congruam, et cum illo butimine siue cemento, unge utrumque
lapidem et simul coniunge, et inseparabiliter adherebunt. fol. 146v.
Aqua de ungulis equorum ut uitrum non frangatur. Accipe ungulam equi et
scinde minutius, et pone in distillatorio et distilla inde aquam, in qua aqua uitrum
multociens calefactum extinguatur, et tunc liquefac et fac inde sublimatoria et
distillatoria et cetera uasa necessaria. fol. 147 r.
The editing of the Liber de Colortbus was carried out under some
pressure of haste, and the text contains a regrettable array of minor errors.
The purpose of the present note is to repair such faults in the published text
as have come to my attention, and to this end I have been greatly aided by
the action of Mr Charles Johnson, of the Public Records Office in London,
who has had the goodness to volunteer a careful list of corrigenda, based
upon his collation of my transcript with the original manuscript in the
British Museum. Mr Johnson’s list overlaps to some extent a similar
memorandum which I had already placed in the hands of the editors of
SPECULUM, and in which were included several corrections which he does
not note. But his independent collation has brought to light a number of
1 Speculum, I (1926), 280 ff.
Notes 449
additional discrepancies, and these are indicated in the following paragraph
by Mr Johnson’s initials (C. J.).
In the Latin text: p. 282, line 8, read dimittendum quousque aqua
possit clara eict (C. J.); p. 282, line 9, inluminari, cod. inlluminari; p. 282,
line 21, for nigrum read nigra (C. J.); p. 282, line 80, C.J. reads extraccisti
for extractisti;! p. 282, line $1, delete semicolon after eztracto and add
comma; p. 284, line 6, for deque read debet (C.J.); p. 284, line 9, for
alumem read alumen? (C.J.): p. 284, line $4, for carominius read carominus
(C.J.); p. 284, line 86, for nowa(m) read nouam; p. 286, line 7, for uero
suppones, read enim superpones (C.J.); p. 286, line 14, for sed read set
(C. J.); p. 286, line 19, C. J. notes that “ Uel aliter is rubricated for the be-
ginning of a new paragraph”; ? p. 286, line 21, add et before wide; p. 286,
line 39, quam, cod. qua (C. J.); p. 288, line 2, for sumiliter read similliter;
p. 288, line 5, for bonum read bene (C. J.); p. 288, line 6, for smssi read spisci,
delete colon after spissi, add colon after sunt; p. 290, line 11, for uiride
read uiridi (C. J.); p. 290, line 21, delete colon after clari, add colon after
sunt; p. 290, line 22, for Grecum read Gretum; p. 290, line 33, for Carominium
read Carominum (C. J.); p. 290, line 36, delete note reference (!) after map-
tizabis; p. 290, line 37, add note reference (') after maptizabis,; p. 292, line 3,
for maptiza read maptizabis; p. 292, line 25, medium, cod. medium with
punctum delens under last stroke (cf. alumen, p. 284, line 9 supra); p. 294,
line 21, for Greco read Greto, for Grecum read Gretum; p. 294, line 80, for
sigilla bis read sigillabis; p. 296, line 9, for olam read ollam; p. 296, line 34,
for de quedam read de quadam (C. J.); p. 298, line 8, for oleum, aquam read
oleum et aquam; p. 298, line 21, read seripturis atque picturrs (C. J.); p. 298,
for footnote, substitute “Error for grana?”’; p. 300, line 13, for sepe read
scilicet (C. J.); p. 300, line 24, for eas read eos; p. 302, line 7, for minimum
read minium; p. 302, line 8, for Hyspanie read Hy(s)panie (C. J.); p. 302,
line 15, add commas after uirideum and album, and delete comma after
plumbum; p. 302, line 23, crocei, cod. crociet with punctum delens under
the first 7; p. 302, line 25, for tertio read tercio; p. 302, line 29, delete semi-
colon after flat and add commas after flat and est; p. 304, line 5, for sed
read set (C. J.); p. 304, lines 12, 16, 26, for pertrahes, pertrahe, read protrahes,
protrahe (C. J.); p. 04, lines 16-17, positurum, cod. positurus.
In the English translation: p. 283, line 8, read aside until the water can
be poured off clear; p. 283, line 32, for remove read removed; p. 285, line 7,
1 The similarity in form between the letters c and ¢ in this manuscript renders the reading
of this combination ambiguous.
2 Cod. alumem with punctum delens under the last stroke (cf. medium, p. 292, line 25,
infra.).
3 A line seems to have been drawn through these words, as if they were perhaps to have
been omitted entirely.
450 Notes
for should read may, and add comma before and again; p. 285, line 18,
delete down; p. 285, line 36, for fine ochre and read ochre or; p. 285, line 41,
for tawny read orange ',; p. 287, line 18, after and add so, and delete as 2
were; p. 287, line 19, for And read For; p. 289, lines 5-6, after miz delete
it uith; p. 289, line 20, add comma after pepper; p. 295, line 38, delete
doubly; p. 297, footnote, line 3, delete comma after heat; p. 299, line 28,
read Likewise, yolks of egg, mixed with a ground-up? bean [and] lime, have;
p. 301, line 15, before pouring add that is to say; p. 301, line 16, delete
repeatedly; p. 308, line 14, for Iute read Lute; p. 308, line 16, add square
brackets around the copper, and delete brackets around the lead; p. 303,
line 38, for but only read in other words; p. $07, line 15, for beaten read
epared.
In the legend of the plate (to face p. 282) *: for fol. 1422 read fol. 1420.
1 Translating rufus of the corresponding Latin.
2 Or, as Mr. Johnson suggests, shelled. (Cf. Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. ‘Fresa’: ‘‘Faba
siliqua exuta, Gall. Féve fraisée ...,’ and ‘Freza’: “... Fabas siliqua nudatas Féves frésées
uel dérobées uocamus.”’ For the translation given here cf. ibid. s.v. ‘Frendere’: ‘*. . . Frendere
est Frangcre, unde est faba Fressa, unde et dentibus dicimur Frendere....’’ Cf. also tbid. 8.2.
‘Faba’: ‘‘Faba Fresa, Féve frésée, a faba et frasus, quod est fractus. Glossar. Lat. Gall. ex
Cod. reg. 7684: Faba frach. Prov. fabe fresa, faba fracta, in Gloss. Province. Lat. ex Cod. 9657.
Cui opponitur faba solida... .”
3 In certain copies of Speculum, Vol. I, No. 3, this plate was misplaced by the binder so
that it appears facing p. 269.
D. V. THompson, Jr.
Yale University.
ERRATA IN “LE LECTIONNAIRE DE SAINT-PERE”
In my recent article, “Le Lectionnaire de Saint-Pére,” (Speculum, I,
269-78) are a few errata to be noted and corrected: a plate illustrating
Sloane MS. No 1754, fol. 142v, which in some copies of the issue faces
p. 269, should be transferred to face p. 282; p. 269, n. 1, 1. 1 for Sciences
read Inscriptions; p. 270, 1. 10 for le dit read ledit; p. 271, 1. 16 for famense
read fameuse; p. 272, n. 1, 1.8 for reproduites read reprodutts; p. 273, |. 2
for en read ne; p. 274, n. 4 for Senorenis read Senonensis, n. 5 for réédits
read réédites; p. 275, |. 6 for passage read partage, |. 9 for sonner read donner,
1. 28 for normands read Normands; p. 276, 1. 25 for da read de; p. 278, 1. 4
for raisommement read raisonnement.
A. WILMART.
Farnborough, Hants.
ee
Notes 451
REPORT ON THE FIRST ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
THE First Annual Meeting of the MepranvaL ACADEMY OF AMERICA was
held on Saturday, April 24, 1926, in the building of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences in Boston. The courtesy of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences made possible a most auspicious and enjoyable inau-
guration of the active life of the MepraEvAL AcapEmy. The attendance
was unexpectedly large, and representative not only of scholastic and cul-
tural interests, but also of the wide distribution of the ACADEMyY’s member-
ship.
After the formal and impressive announcement by the President of the
inauguration of the ACADEMY, many letters of greeting from European
Mediaevalists were read by the President, and placed on record. There-
after, the Clerk read his report of the previous meetings of the Council,
and this was followed by the report of the Treasurer, and those of the
Managing Editor of SpecuLum and of the Editor of the bulletin, Progress
of Medveval Studies in the United States of America. The acts of the
Council were largely formal and were concerned with ratifying the
actions of the Executive Committee and such other matters as were neces-
sary to bring the Acapemy into actual operation. In addition to these
routine matters, Mr John Marshall was appointed Executive Secretary
(to assume his duties on October 1), and a vote of thanks was given Mr
Nicholas Molodowsky for his invaluable services as temporary Executive
Secretary. It was also voted that an allowance of One Hundred Dollars
(the first pecuniary grant of the AcaDEMy) should be made to Dom André
Wilmart, O.S.B., at present engaged in an investigation of the script of the
School of Autun, with the understanding that the ACADEMY reserves its
first right to publication. The final action of the Council was the election
of the first thirty Fellows. A large number of nominations had been sub-
mitted and, after balloting, the following were declared Fellows of the
MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA: |
Puiuip SCHUYLER ALLEN Gorpon Haut GEROULD
CHARLES HENRY BEESON CHARLES HALL GRANDGENT
CARLETON BROWN NorMAN Scott BRIEN GRAS
JoHN NicHo.tas BRown CHARLES Homer Haskins
GrorGE LINCOLN Burr GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE
CHARLES Upson CLARK JOHN LiviNGston LOWES
GEORGE RALEIGH COFFMAN JOHN MatrHews MANLY
ALBERT STANBURROUGH CooK CHARLES Rurus Morey
RaupH ADAMS CRAM Dana CaRLTON Munro
452 Notes
NELLIE NEILSON JOHN STRONG PERRY TaTLOcK
Lotis JoHN PAETOW Henry Ossorn TAYLOR
ARTHUR KINGSLEY PORTER JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
EpWARD KENNARD RAND Lynn THORNDIKE
Frep Norris ROBINSON JAMES FIELD WILLARD
Rt. Rev. Toomas JOSEPH SHAHAN Karu YOUNG
It is an interesting fact that the first twenty Fellows elected were
identical with the first twenty names receiving the largest number of votes
amongst the nominations submitted by members of the AcapEwy.
Subsequently, and by letter ballot, the following names were added to
the list of Fellows:
Exras AvERY LOWE
GEORGE ARTHUR PLIMPTON
RosBeErT Kri~ecRNn Root
The membership of the AcapEemwy at that date was announced as 503,
an unexpectedly large list of accessions.!
The Treasurer’s statement showed to date total receipts of $19,582.01,
expenditures of $3,649.51, with a cash balance on hand of $15,932.50.
In reporting on the publication of the first two numbers of SPEctLUM,
Mr Magoun issued a word of warning against undue emphasis upon litera-
ture and language, and urged the inclusion of studies on mediaeval music,
law, science, art, and education, together with a recognition of mediaeval
Byzantine culture.
Mr Willard made a most interesting report upon the progress of medi-
aeval studies in America, giving an historical review of the actions that had
led up to and culminated in the formation of the MEpraEvaL ACADEMY.
It should be noted that the very existence of the AcAaDEMyY was made
possible through these earlier activities which had been initiated by
Mr Willard.
The next business was a series of statements bearing on certain projects
in mediaeval scholarship, that of Mediaeval Latin dictionaries by Messrs
C. H. Beeson and J. F. Willard; on a dictionary of Old and Middle
Irish by Mr F. P. Magoun, jr (for Mr F. N. Robinson); on bibliographical
projects by Mr F. P. Magoun, jr; and on certain possibilities of research
in mediaeval art by Mr A. K. Porter. All of these reports were notably
stimulating and served to indicate a lacunae now existing in the field
of mediaeval studies. All the projects noted are evidently those that
should be undertaken by the ACADEMY as soon as the necessary funds are
available.
1 At the moment of going to press, the total membership is 821.
a] WER
of rele
dded ‘0
Notes 453
Mr Coffman then gave a general survey of the field, with further sug-
gestions as to possible activities, noting particularly four manifest functions,
namely, the publication of monographs, the granting of funds to scholars
for the prosecution of their researches along different lines, acting as a sort
of ‘clearing house’ for individuals or groups interested in mediaeval
projects, and the bringing together in useful and scholastic codperation
of all those whose interests lie in the channels of Mediaevalism. He par-
ticularly urged the formation of a ‘Committee on Projects,’ whose func-
tion would be to survey the whole field, come in contact with scholars and
students, analyze, classify, and evaluate projects or activities already ini-
tiated, and recommend to the Council those which need the support and
which should receive the attention and codperation of the ACADEMY.
After the formal announcement of the names of the Fellows, the meeting
adjourned for a luncheon, held in the Library of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences; this interlude gave not only an opportunity for physi-
cal refreshment, but also for the coming together of the members of the
ACADEMY, many of whom had, until then, been strangers to each other.
The meeting reassembled at 2 p.m. The first business was the election
of officers; but, since their names now appear inside the front cover of
SPECULUM, they need not be repeated here.
Followed then the presidential address on “Mediaeval Gloom and
Mediaeval Uniformity,” a paper of infinite charm and wisdom.! The
final paper was by the Clerk, and dealt with the relationship of the Mep1-
AEVAL ACADEMY to modern life, stressing particularly the fact that the
New Mediaevalism was not to be considered wholly as a philological or
archaeological industry, but rather as a vital element in the development
of contemporary culture and civilization.
Respectfully submitted,
RatpH ADAMS CRAM,
Clerk.
1 Published Speculum I (1926), 253 ff.
REVIEWS
PRESENT-Day THINKERS AND THE New Scxouasticism: An International Symposium.
Edited and augmented by John S. Zybura, Ph.D. St Louis and London: Herder, 1926.
Pp. xviii, 543.
THE New Scholasticism has shown itself, at least on the Continent, a vigorous
and healthy movement, one which is daily gaining in the respect of its
opponents. Such has not been the case in English-speaking countries,
and the author of this book attempts to discover the reason why, by quiz-
zing some of the leading thinkers of the United States and England on their
attitude towards the New Scholasticism, their evaluation of it as a con-
temporary system, and their views as to whether a rapprochement is pos-
sible and near at hand between the New Scholasticism and the different
currents of present-day philosophy.
Of the kindly spirit which prompted the surprisingly large number of
replies received, there can be no question. Present-day philosophers in
England and America do not seem to be prejudiced against Scholasticism
either in its old or new forms. That they do not understand it, or have
taken their conception of it from traditions current in the academic circles
where they grew up, is admitted by practically all who replied to the ques-
tionnaire. However, all express a genuine willingness to be informed as to
what the Neo-Scholastics think; and some even go so far as to take the
latter severely to task for their unwillingness or inability to make the
master ideas of their system better and more generally known.
The replies of Professors Hocking, Sheldon, Blake, Taylor, and Webb,
and especially of Professor Longwell, reveal more than a passing acquaint-
ance with Scholastic teachings and a freedom from that bias against them
which has been all too prominent a characteristic of the thinking of some
contemporary philosophers. Professor Taylor, in particular, exhibits a
commendable spirit of broadmindedness when he writes: ‘““The ‘modern’
has to learn that there really is no such thing as a breach of continuity in
the history of philosophy. . . . Entire understanding can only come as the
result of the conviction that each party has something worth saying to say,
and that slap-dash criticism, made from either side without any real attempt
to understand what the other means, is mere useless wrangling which breeds
nothing but bad temper and self-complacency”’ (p. 71).
This reviewer was especially pleased to discover that at least one of our
American philosophers, Professor Hocking, has not been taken in by the
uncritical views of progress which are now almost universally held; views
454
Reviews 455
which cannot but react against any sound appreciation of the past, as well
as engender a species of intellectual self-sufficiency which is not only
illogical but is tremendously irritating as well to persons possessing a
profound historical sense. Professor Hocking writes: “Where philosophies
of everlasting flux prevail there cannot but be impatience with an intel-
lectual world in which well-ordered systems, to remain eternally valid, are
striven for; but thinkers for the most part realize that permanence of truth
and the growth of truth are not incompatible, any more than the identity
of an individual is incompatible with his growth. When this truth is well
understood, many of the difficulties between modernism and traditionalism,
both in philosophy and in doctrine, will disappear’’ (p. 8).
The second section of the symposium is made up of articles by Neo-
Scholastics who attempt to give—and in large measure succeed in so doing
—the scholastic attitude towards the principal problems of modern phi-
losophy. Particularly interesting for the student of mediaeval thought is
the chapter on the “‘Nature and Problems of the New Scholasticism in the
Light of History” by that well-known mediaevalist, Professor Grabmann
of Munich. Chapters follow by Professors Geny of Rome, Switalski of
Braunsberg, Maritain of Paris, Noé] of Louvain, Olgiati of Milan, and by
a number of other prominent Neo-Scholastics. The reader will find here
something of the spirit of the New Scholasticism, as well as a good summary
of its position on the vexing questions of present-day thought. One con-
clusion cannot but be drawn from a study of this section of the book, that
those thinkers who still imagine that the New Scholasticism is essentially
authoritarian, tied down to dogma, obscurantist, and backward looking,
have little or no knowledge of the position defended by the Neo-Scholastics
and less appreciation of the free spirit of inquiry which plays so prominent
a part in all their speculations.
Dr Zybura concludes his interesting work with an objective analysis
of the factors which led to the decline of mediaeval Scholasticism. He
especially emphasizes the consequences of the new interpretation of man
and of the cosmos which acme in with Descartes and his successors, a
viewpoint which stressed the immanence of thought and the place of the
subject in thinking, as against the transcendental and objective which were
characteristic of the older philosophy, an orientation which had more than
anything else to do with giving to modern thought its naturalistic and
materialistic trend. That this reading of the philosophical revolution is
not exact, and is itself due to a philosophical position which is assumed, not
proved, the author brings out in his critical review of the philosophy of
history which has held sway for so long in positivist circles. He feels that
Scholasticism, if correctly presented, has something of great value to
offer modern thought; that its metaphysics of being in no way contradicts
456 Reviews
a scientific view of nature and of man; that the principles, methods, and
achievements of the sciences during the last four centuries can be assimi-
lated by the New Scholasticism; that, if the Scholasticism of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries failed to appreciate correctly and assimilate
thoroughly what was sound in the scientific and philosophical work of that
period, there is no reason to assert that Scholasticism does not contain
doctrines essential to a complete and true synoptic view of the universe,
or that the New Scholasticism is incapable of bringing its position into
harmony with modern thought and modern science.
JAMES H. Ryan,
The Catholic University of America.
Epwarp H. Seurt, Vollstandiges Wérterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsiichsischen Genesis,
Gittingen: Vandenhoeck und Rupprecht; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1925.
(Hesperia, Bd. 14.)!
StupENts of Old Saxon have in lexicographical matters hitherto been
obliged to rely almost entirely on their own collections and notes. The
glossaries appended to editions of the Helzand and the Genesis by Behaghel,
Braune, and Heyne were intended primarily to serve pedagogical purposes;
Schmeller’s Glossarc.um Sazxonicum is antiquated and not always available;
Wadstein’s glossary of the minor Old-Saxon monuments and Gallée’s
Vorstudien zu einem altniederdeutschen Worterbuche are incomplete. So the
answer to most questions, lexicographical or grammatical, could be found
only after long and wearisome search in the sources and special treatises.
This want of a complete index to the two principal Old-Saxon monu-
ments has now been definitely supplied by Sehrt’s dictionary. Here at
last we may find not only every occurrence of every form in the Heliand
and the Genesis but also the variants of the MSS arranged in clear and
simple fashion. Under each article Sehrt gives first all accepted etymologies
with references to Falk and Torp and for the Old-High-German cognates
to Graff. The latter will be antiquated upon the appearance of the Old-
High-German dictionary now being prepared by the Deutsche Akademie
in Munich. And it is no less unfortunate that Holthausen’s Altfriesisches
Worterbuch, which lists some twelve hundred more Old-Frisian words than
Richthofen’s dictionary, was published after Sehrt’s book had already
gone to press. However, the addenda, which may be necessary after a
comparison with these two works, will not be very numerous.
The student will be particularly grateful for the complete references to
the pages of Behaghel’s Syntaz des Heliand which, unindexed and pedan-
1 See also reviews in Géttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, CLXXXVIII (1925), 94-96; Liter-
arische Wochenschrift (1926), 484; Neophtlologus, XI (1926), 230-231; Mod. Lang. Notes, XLI
(1926), 204-205.
—
—— =
Reviews 457
tically arranged, needs almost to be memorized before it can be readily
used. Equally useful are the special bibliographies in the footnotes.
Following the method first adopted by Grassmann in his Wérterbuch
zum Rig-V eda, Sehrt records the various meanings of a word in the order
of their semantic development, illustrating each by copious citations.
The detailed line references which close each article are then grouped under
numerals that refer to the corresponding divisions in the semantic section
of the article. In the case of frequent words, like the personal pronouns
and the definite article, completeness means pages upon pages of numbers.
The article ‘he’ fills twenty-one columns, but the arrangement is so simple
that any desired form may be found with little loss of time. The use of the
dictionary might have been still further facilitated if the columns had been
provided with sub-headings in the case of the long articles, or if each case
or verbal form had been more clearly set off from its neighbors. Still,
strategic underlining with a blue pencil will serve to break the more or less
solid pages and will assist the eye.
For such a detailed work — there are about half a million entries — the
misprints and omissions are few in number and they would have been
fewer still had not the printing been done at several different shops, making
proof-reading unnecessarily complicated. To those in the “Nachtrige und
Berichtigungen”’ the reviewer wishes to add the following:
Page 5b, |. 25, for 3968 read 3918; p. 8b, |. 6 from bottom, for
638 cf. Behaghel, Syntaz, p. 85; p. 9b, Il. 12-18, here and elsewhere
throughout the book the sign > should be reversed; p. 47b, 1. 13, after
aus add a); p. 53b, |. 5, before 134 add gibod (gibud*); p. 67b, |. 9 from
bottom add Gen. 92, 296: p. 67b, I. 6 from bottom, under 4a add Gen. 129,
327; p. 91a, 1. 15 beginning, add 1; p. 92b, |. 10, add $813 before 3849;
p. 125b, |. 18, after stv. add 1; p. 128b, under ferkal add: (<lat. veruculum,
frz. verrou. Vgl. Sehrt, Mod. Lang. Notes, XL (1925), 62); p. 131b, 1. 9
from bottom, for findan read finden; p. 173b, |. 4 from bottom, after stv.
add 1; p. 18a, 1. 14, for sulie read sulic; p. 192a, 1. 20, for ahd. gi-swere
read gi-swerc; p. 207b, 1. 25, for 806 read 805; p. 257b, 1. 17, add hutlum
fan himile héto skinit thiu berahto sunna, Gen. 19, and |. 18, add héto, Gen. 19;
p. 263a, |. 4, for wuere read uuerc; p. 264b, |. 23, for 730 cf. Synt. § 313;
p. 271a, 1. 9, for sprdcum read sprdcun; p. 286a, 1. 16 from bottom, after
stv. add 1; p. 323a, |. 20, for le read te; p. 827a, 1. 9 from bottom, add
aledien (alethian*) 1232; p. 328b, |. 16, after bracket, add 1; p. 333b, |. 19,
after vollbringen add a; p. $41b, 1. 19, for leob read leob; p. $48b, 1. 2, for
liodo read liodio; p. 355b, 1. 9 from bottom, for mahlidun read mahlidin;
p. 356a, |. 8, at beginning, add 1; p. 358b, |. 3 from bottom, for § 480,
Anm. 5, read § 480.5; p. 365a, 1. 18, for 4 read 2; p. 391b, 1. 16, delete 1;
p. 424a, 1. 7, add adar side Gen. 211, which should appear here as well as
458 Reviews
under st stm.; p. 432a, 1.8 from bottom, for negénum read negénun; p. 483,
Note 6, read Gallée; p. 448a, 1. 5, for sacuualdond read sacuualdand; p. 488a,
1. 8, before 873, add 798, 818; p. 520a, ]. 16, for Gen. 49 read Gen. 40; p. 587b,
1.10 from bottom, before 516, add 428; p. 541b, 1. 23, for érine read érine;
p. 568a, 1. 10 from bottom, for c read b; p. 570a, 1. 17 from bottom,
before A, add I.; p. 590a, 1.14 from bottom, for thia* read tha*; p. 593a,
1. 4, read in Verbindung mit; p. 596b, |. 7, for md read mid; p. 720b, after
1.21, add acc. sg. fem. uureda (uuretha*) 1132; p. 72@b, 1. 11, for uudgnun
read uudpnun.
In the Heliand, v. 556, the phrase an fédiu which epically varies an
ganga can scarcely be taken in the sense zu Fuss. The phrase occurs only
here and in v. 2959. In the former passage the Magi were certainly not
travelling on foot; and in the latter, endi sie an fa5i samad bédea gengun,
antat sie obar bord skipes st6pun fan themu stréme is to be translated: “and
they [Christ and Peter] both went on their way until they stepped on
board ship from the water.’”’ Moreover, the parallelism with an ganga in
verse 556 supports the view that an {661 or f6dzu means ‘on one’s way.’
Any remaining doubt is removed by the third and last occurrence of féd,
Hel. 2921. Here we might, though it is not necessary, translate ‘on foot,’
since the disciples were surprised to see the Lord walking dryshod over
the lake. But the dative plural, which is used here, perhaps marks a differ-
ence from the singular of the other passages. The OE. on féde (e.g., Béow.
970), cognate with the phrase under discussion, does not mean ‘on foot’
but ‘in movement’ ‘a-going.’
On p. 131b the verb antfand, as it is used in Hel. 1127, really belongs
under heading 2. John the Baptist was already by the Jordan and beheld
Christ approaching: John did not find Christ by the river. The following
line shows how the verb should here be taken: endi them helidun sagda,
Johannes is iungurun, thé he ina gangan gesah. This verb has then only the
meaning ‘ bemerken,’ ‘wahrnehmen.’
In the case of the compounds of fridu- the uniform translation Frie-
dens-, customary in the glossaries and adopted by Sehrt, is not appropriate
in every instance. The sense of security is associated with it in some com-
pounds. This is particularly true in friduwdra, Hel. 483, fnduwih, Hel. 513
(the temple as a sanctuary) and fridubarn as often applied to Christ. To
the ancient Saxons Jesus must have appealed rather as a protector than
a bringer of peace. Thus fridubarn would be better rendered ‘Schutzkind.’
The adjective kraftag could well have been glossed also as ‘crafty.’
Sehrt does indeed translate it as verschlagen in Hel. 4469. But in Hel. 1030
and 4657 the sense is again ‘listig’ rather than ‘bése.”. The numerous
examples could easily have been arranged to illustrate the semantic de-
velopment: ‘mighty,’ ‘skilful,’ ‘cunning,’ ‘evil.’
Reviews 459
For kidliko (Hel. 857, 4123, 5920), a more suitable translation would
have been ‘éffenilich,’ ‘vor aller Welt.’
The adjective lungar, frequent enough in OE. as lungre, ‘quickly,’
seems to have been rare in Middle and High German territory and none
too well understood. In OHG. it occurs twice in the glosses of the eighth
and ninth centuries, once for strenuus and once for expeditus. In two of the
four OS. instances of lungar the spelling is corrupt. In the two cases where
M is concerned we have 2 in place of |; P glosses lungras by gitalas. Only
C, which according to Priebsch was written in England, has the word
correct in all four passages. This would seem to indicate that the expres-
sion was becoming archaic on the Continent, though, to be sure, it
occurs in MHG., in South German poets and dialectically in the Tyrol to
this day (v. DWB. s. vv. lunge, lungern and Lexer). However this may be,
the meaning is perfectly clear and that is not krdaftig, stark, but schnell.
This applies in all four of the Heliand passages; indeed with reference to
the Dove of the Baptism, any other would be out of place. Only in verse
5298 could there be any doubt. So it would be best to discard the tradi-
tional rendering and substitute one in accord with the meaning of the
word in OE. and the dialects where it survives to a time much later than
the Heliand.
In Hel. 5191 Sehrt interprets riki as Land, Reich. Though there are
instances where it is all but impossible to decide whether Volk or Reich
is intended, the context in this passage makes it certain that Volk is the
proper meaning. Christ is here speaking of himself in his réle as Gefolgsherr.
In Hel. 1045 sacun should, despite the Latin source, be taken in the
sense of ‘sin’ and not ‘case in court,’ principally because of the parallel
sundiun in v. 1048. Satan wished to bring about the fall of the Son of
Man by means of the same sin (sacun) which once brought down Adam.
When used with willeo, gistandan would be more appropriately trans-
lated in Erfiillung gehen.
Etymologically it is more satisfactory to gloss sunnia as Zustand than
as Not, Krankheit. In the one passage where it occurs (v. 2305) in refer-
ence to the paralytic, this condition chances to be one of distress.
Continued use of Sehrt’s dictionary will no doubt discover other
instances where one may disagree with him; but conservatism is always
an admirable quality in a lexicographical work. Professor Sehrt deserves
the hearty thanks of all Germanic scholars for his labors in giving us
a book which is not likely to be superseded.
TAYLOR STARCK,
Harvard University.
460 Reviews
ALBERT S. Cook and CuHauncey B. TInkER, Select Translations from Old English Poetry.
Revised ed., Boston: Ginn and Co., [1926]. $1.48.
ALMOST 8 quarter of a century has elapsed since Cook and Tinker’s famous
little anthology of OE. verse in modern English translation was first issued,
and since 1902, when it originally appeared, it has rightly earned for itself
a host of friends from college Freshmen to grown-ups who wish, through
independent study, to broaden their knowledge of our early literature.
The main body of the text (and conveniently, too, the pagination)
remains unaltered, but the introductory notes and bibliographical material
(valuable features of this work) have been brought well up to date. It is
inevitable that Professor Cook’s name should appear often; for his contri-
butions to the advance of knowledge in almost every phase of OE. literature
and culture have been considerable and distinguished. The best critical
editions are regularly cited and many significant recent monographs;
yet the reviewer cannot refrain from pointing out a few additional
titles which in his opinion would have been of interest and value to the
very readers for whom the anthology is designed.
R. W. Chambers’s Beowulf: An Introduction (Cambridge: University
Press, 1921) belongs, if anything does, on p. 9 in the introduction to “‘Se-
lections from Beowulf,”’ nor is any bibliography of the Deor complete with-
out reference to Mr Bruce Dickens’s Runic and Heroic Poems (Cambridge
University Press, 1915, pp. 70 ff.) with its text, translation, and useful
commentary. For Csedmon’s Hymm (pp. 76 ff.), the selections from the
so-called Ceedmonian poems (pp. 104 ff., 117 ff.), and the Ceedmon Legend
(pp. 180 ff.) one misses mention of Mr C. W. Kennedy’s admirable book,
The Cedmon Poems (London: Routledge, 1916). A significant interpreta-
tion of the symbolism of the Dream of the Rood by Mr H. R. Patch (“‘Litur-
gical Influence in the ‘Dream of the Rood,’” (Publ. Mod. Lang. Assn.,
XXXIV (1919), 233 ff.) is lacking; also the impressive fifth volume of
Mr G. Baldwin Brown’s Arts in Early England (Vol. V, London: Murray,
1921), devoted in a large measure to the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses:
these works might have been cited on pp. 93 and 100 respectively. In dis-
cussing the interesting literary question as whether or not Milton knew
the so-called Genesis A and Genesis B, reference to Frl. Dr S. von Gajgek’s
Milton und Cedmon (Wiener Beitriige, Vol. XX XV, 1911) would have been
in place. C. W. Kennedy’s Poems of Cynewulf (London: Routledge, 1910)
is cited on p. 189; it would appear advantageously in the notes to other
Cynewulfian pieces. Although Mr Grendon’s important article is included
in the introduction to the Charms (p. 164), one regrets that Cockayne’s -
Leechdoms could not have been retained — so famous and useful a work,
and in so famous a series.
Reviews 461
The general bibliography (pp. 172-73) has been radically revised; yet
H. M. Kennedy’s unsatisfactory translation of the first edition of ten
Brink’s Geschichte der englischen literatur has the air of usurping a place
better given to Professor Brandl’s revised edition (Vol. I, Strassburg, 1899;
see Vorwort, pp. x-xi for Brandl on Kennedy). Mr Tinker’s excellent
monograph (1903) on translations of the Beowulf should in the nature of
things be supplemented by specific reference to Klaeber’s Beowulf, pp.
Cxxvi-cxxix. There are two works which should somehow find a place in
the text or the bibliography, for both are easily procured and are in their
respective ways of general interest: A. R. Benham’s source-book, English
Literature from Widsith to the Death of Chaucer (Yale University Press,
1916) and H. M. Chadwick’s stimulating and suggestive study, The
Heroic Age (Cambridge: University Press, 1912). |
Finally, when the time comes for a third edition, cannot space be found
or made for the Finnsburg Fragment, the Sigemund-Fitela episode from
the Béowuwf (with its far-flung associations), and some account of the
Franks (or Clermont) Casket which either here or in Professor Cook’s
companion volume of Old-English prose merits inclusion for so many
reasons?
It is a pleasure to renew the acquaintance of an old friend and to
commend it heartily in its new garb to all readers of mediaeval literature
who have not the opportunity to master our native tongue in its first youth.
May we not hope soon to see the companion volume, Select Translations
from Old English Prose (Boston, 1908), refurbished in a like manner.
F. P. Macoon, jr,
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
The Book of Troilus and Criseyde by Geoffrey Chaucer. Edited from all the known manu-
scripts by Robert Kilburn Root. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1926.
Pp. xc, 573. $6.
Proressor Roor’s edition of the Troilus fulfills the high expectations
aroused by his preliminary labors in the field. His exhaustive study of the
manuscripts, continuing and completing the investigations of Sir William
McCormick, laid the foundation for all later work on the text. His articles
on date, sources, and related matters considerably advanced the knowledge
of these subjects, and now in his edition he has not only turned to account
the results of his own researches, but has also canvassed very fully the large
body of learned ‘literature’ that has grown up about the poem. He has
produced an edition that may in a sense be called definitive. At all events
the main work of establishing a text will not have to be done over again.
Mr Root has scrupulously collected and recorded readings of the manu-
462 Reviews
scripts, and has constructed a good, trustworthy text by a sound and
defensible method. In the choice of individual readings no editor’s decision
will be always unassailable, and in the matter of method Mr Root’s pro-
cedure is at some points open to criticism. But the received text of the
Troilus in the future is not likely to differ materially from that now printed
in his edition. And his critics and successors, whatever improvement they
may here and there succeed in making, will always be indebted for the
evidence with which they work to the great body of textual materials
assembled and classified by him. With respect to the date and literary
relations of the Troilus, and concerning the whole intellectual and social
background of the poem, it is to be expected and hoped that new infor-
mation will be steadily gathered. No book can long remain abreast of the
swiftly advancing knowledge of Chaucer; but Mr Root’s statements are
so well supported by facts and guided in general by such good judgment,
that very little of his account of the poem seems likely to be discredited by
future investigation. For many years his volume will stand as a notable
landmark in the progress of Chaucerian scholarship.
The introduction deals with such subjects as the date and sources of
the poem, the history of the Troilus story, and the modifications the ma-
terials underwent in the hands of Chaucer. These matters are treated with
a lucidity and fullness which will be particularly welcome to readers to
whom the mediaeval versions of the story of Troy are unfamiliar and not
easily accessible. Mr Root’s discussion is always interesting and reflects
a sympathetic understanding of the Middle Ages. He is also to be com-
mended for the moderation with which, both in the introduction and
throughout the work, he usually states opinions on matters of real uncer-
tainty. Thus he holds the balance true in weighing the opposed arguments
of Professors Young and Cummings on Chaucer’s use of the Filocolo,
though he would have done well to record more fully, in either the introduc-
tion or the notes, the scattered parallels that have been pointed out between
the Troilus and that prose work of Boccaccio.
Mr Root’s text itself, as already remarked, is an example of thoroughly
competent editing. There is, however, room for difference of opinion about
some points in his procedure. This is not the place for a detailed list of
disputed or disputable readings, but mention may be made of two debatable
questions of method.
The first relates to the treatment of the so-called B-group of manu-
scripts. Opinions have varied, as al] Chaucerians are aware, with respect
to the poet’s revision, or revisions, of the Troilus. Some scholars have
held that Chaucer made three distinct versions of the poem, others that
he made only two versions, that is to say, a single revision. Professor
Brusendorff, in his recent book on The Chaucer Tradition (pp. 166 ff.),
Re we. HS EL
i 2 ae
Renews 463
questions whether any version earlier than the completed form was actu-
ally published, in the mediaeval sense of the word. But, however one may
account for the existing forms of the text, it is generally agreed that many
of the variant readings are not merely scribal, but represent corrections
or changes made by the poet himself. The exact relations of the
manuscripts are described by Mr Root in his work, The Textual Tradition of
Chaucer’s Troilus. They are there divided into three main groups, with
considerable allowance for contamination or crossing of types. Group a
has a version which often shows readings closer than those of 8 or y to the
Italian original. This is generally granted to represent the earliest stage of
the text. Groups 8 and y agree for the most part and present a revised
version of the poem. Their common variations from type a are recognized
as due to Chaucer. Some of the best manuscripts belong to type y, and
one of these (MS. 61, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge) is taken by
Mr Root as the basis of his text. But he does not adhere to version 7:
There are a limited number of variants, chiefly in Book iii, peculiar to the
8-manuscripts, which he takes to represent a third stage of the text,
Chaucer’s final revision, and he has accordingly incorporated these cor-
rections in his edition. Most of the passages in question are collected and
discussed in Mr Root’s Teztual Tradition at pp. 157 ff. and pp. 222 ff.
Now the present reviewer has never been convinced that the 6-variants
have the authority which Mr Root ascribes to them. Many of them are of
trifling importance or not obviously superior to the readings of y. Some
of them resemble the changes made by the ‘emendacious’ scribe of MS.
Harleian 7334 of the Canterbury Tales. A very few are really tempting,
and these must be considered on their merits. They may of course repre-
sent Chaucer’s final intentions, changes made in his manuscript after the
y-archetype was copied, or made earlier and overlooked by the scribe of
that archetype. But a defiinite preference is necessary to justify an
editor in departing from the excellent y-manuscripts, and there is no
sufficient evidence of an extensive second revision, or third state, of the
text. It is especially hard to ascribe final authority to the 6-group in view
of its admitted inferiority in Book ii— an inferiority which drives Mr Root
to rather desperate explanations (see The Textual Tradition, pp. 126-8).
The reviewer has, as a matter of fact, adhered almost exclusively to
version y in editing the Troilus for the Cambridge Chaucer, now nearly
completed, and he is glad to have his choice of the Corpus Manuscript as
the basis of the text confirmed by the judgment of Mr Root. It should be
added that in the poem as a whole the differences between Mr Root’s text,
thus corrected by 8, and the y-version — purged, of course, of its errors—
are inconsiderable.
464 Reriews
The reviewer would also approve, and has followed, a somewhat different
procedure from Mr Root’s in the matter of orthography. It is hardly
possible, as Mr Root nghtly maintains, to get behind the practice of the
scribes and restore or reconstruct an authoritative Chaucerian spelling.
Consequently, in the case of works preserved in such good copies as the
Ellesmere manuscript of the Canterbury Tales or the Corpus and Campsall
texts of the Troilus, an editor’s best course is to follow the spellings of the
scribe. This has been, with minor variations, the tendency in recent
editions. Skeat corrected occasional strange forms, and tried to normalize
the spelling of the scribes, particularly in the matter of doubling long
vowels in closed syllables (good, keep) and of writing them singly in open
svilables (gode, kepe). But his text on the whole represents the practice of
the scribes, made somewhat more regular than in fact it was. Mr Pollard,
in the Globe edition of the Canterbury Tales, adhered more closely than
Skeat to the Ellesmere spellings, and Mr Root has adopted a similar course
with his Corpus text. This procedure is to be preferred, on the whole, to
Skeat’s half-way normalization. When an editor once begins to regularize
the spelling, there is no good place to stop short of a completely consistent
or even an approximately phonetic system. But both Mr Pollard and Mr
Root have gone so far as to retain ungrammatical final e’s, which is an
excess of conservatism. In forms like fisshe, nom. sg. (iii, 10), frende,
ace. sg. (i, 680), dede, adj. nom. sg. (11, 442), brede, acc. sg. (11, 444),
bicome, str. pret. 3 sg. (1, 1079), shope, str. pret. 3 sg. (11, 61), tolde, wk.
pte. sg. (ii, 135), and kepe, sbst. acc. sg. (111, 1396) the final vowels are not
grammatically justifiable. They are purely scribal, and not in accord with
the scribe’s own best practice. Some of them might be defended as early
examples of the modern device of adding a final e to indicate the length of
a stem vowel, as hate and white are distinguished from hat and whit, but this
convention was not established in the Chaucer manuscripts, and the occa-
sional use of it merely causes confusion. Surely normalization is here de-
sirable in the interest of a correct representation of Chaucer’s language.
But scores of such unjustifiable e’s have been preserved in Mr Root’s text.
Most of them are obviously unpronounced and consequently will mislead
nobody as to the reading of the lines. But in one case at least (i, 722) an
incorrect form, worde (acc. sg.), has been unwarrantably used to mend the
metre.
Another instance, of a different sort, of an ill-advised choice of a spell-
ing is found in iii, 1595. There the Corpus copy, with plenty of support,
reads blesse, in the sense of ‘bless.”- But Mr Root adopts the Campsall and
Harleian reading, blisse. This spelling 1s, of course, possible enough in itself,
for the two words Dblisse and blesse were hopelessly confused in Middle
English; but the rime with destresse proves that Chaucer used the form
Reviews 465
with e, and an editor ought to print it, even if it were against the testi-
mony of all the manuscripts.
One of Mr Root’s chief services to his fellow-Chaucerians is in the com-
pilation of the copious notes which fill the last hundred and fifty pages of
his volume. Skeat’s annotation of the Troilus in the Oxford Chaucer was
rather meagre, in comparison with his notes on the Canterbury Tales and
the minor poems. Much new information, too, has been brought to light
since Skeat’s edition, especially in monographs and articles of Professors
Hamilton, Kittredge, Lowes, Young, and the editor himself. So Mr Root,
in making a critical digest of all this learning, has produced what is really
the first adequate commentary on the Troilus, and the reviewer, who in
the past few years has been canvassing the same material for the Cambridge
Chaucer, is glad of the opportunity to acknowledge in advance, as it were,
his obligation to Mr Root’s compilation. Anybody who has undertaken
to collect the widely scattered information on the sources and exegesis of
Chaucer’s text, and to reduce it all to the limits of editorial notes, will
realize the difficulties of selection and the impossibility of avoiding over-
sights and omissions. Mr Root’s survey of the field has been careful and
very nearly complete. It is with a full appreciation of the difficulty of the
editor’s task that the reviewer suggests here in conclusion a few additions
or corrections. There is neither time nor space for a detailed examination
of the whole commentary.
It is hard for an editor to decide how far to go beyond the necessary
interpretation of the text, and how much to introduce of more general
comment and illustration. But in the notes to the Proem of Book i, Mr
Root might well have shown more fully the mixture of Christian theology
with the doctrines of romantic love — “‘the mediaeval convention,”’ as he
calls it later (p. 443), ““which treats of courtly love in the terms of the
Christian religion.”” He points out the resemblance of stanzas 5, 6, and
7 to the form of a ‘bidding prayer.’ And one may note further the adapta-
tion in line 15 of the papal title, seruus seruorum Dei, and in line 42 the
allusion to the sin of ‘wanhope,’ or despair of God’s mercy, on which Mr
Root comments later when it is mentioned in ii, 530.
Here and there Mr Root seems to have overlooked the sources of pas-
sages or parallels significant enough to be noted. The figure of the hertes
line in i, 1068, is surely derived from the Poetria Nova of Geoffroi de
Vinsauf, as was pointed out by Professor Kittredge in Mod. Phil. VII, 481
(see also H. B. Hinckley, ibid., XVI, 39). The striking couplet (i, 713-4),
That certainly no more harde grace
May sitte on me, for why ther is no space,
which is credited to Ovid in MS. R, doubtless comes from the Ex Ponto
466 Reviews
ii, 7, 41, as Mr Kittredge was also the first to observe. Ovid’s expression
is very similar to Chaucer’s.
Sic ego continuo fortunae uulneror ictu,
Uixque habet in nobis iam noua plaga locum.
The note to iv, 176, might well mention Mr Hamilton’s suggestion of
the indebtedness of Hector’s speech and the ensuing popular outcry to
Benoit (Roman de Trove, vv. 12967 ff.) and Guido (Historia, Strassburg,
1486, sig. 1, 1 verso, coll. 1-2). And to the parallels cited from Dante
and Boccaccio for ili, 4—5,
Plesaunce of love, o goodly debonaire,
In gentil hertes ay redy to repaire,
might well be added Guido Guinizelli’s line,
Al cor gentil ripara sempre amore.
The language is closer to Chaucer’s than is that of either Dante or Boccaccio,
and if Chaucer did not know Guido’s whole canzone (as is likely enough),
he may have read this first line in Dante’s Convirio iv, 20. Again, in the
note to v, 817, mention should at least be made of the parallel passage in
the Paradiso xviii, 21, pointed out by Professor Cook in the Rom. Rev.,
VIII, 226.
In a number of notes fuller information or discussion would have been
welcome. Thus the use of for in constructions like for pure ashamed
(ii, 656) was less uncommon than the note implies, and was familiar with
adjectives as well as participles. The idiom is discussed and illustrated by
Mr Kittredge in the [Harvard] Studies and Notes I, 16-17. In ii, 1108,
Mr Root prints to-laugh (perhaps correctly) as the preterite singular of
a compound verb, but he ought to have noted Professor Kenyon’s argu-
ment (The Syntaz of the Infinitive in Chaucer, pp. 80 ff.) for printing to laughe
and interpreting it as a causal infinitive. In 1, 615, Mr Root wisely keeps
the reading gatis in preference to the ill-supported variant latis. But
he is needlessly troubled by the phrase cast up, which, as Mr Kittredge
has shown, can mean simply ‘open.’ (See Mod. Phil., VII, 480.)
Near the end of the poem (v, 1857) Mr. Root has followed Skeat in
what is pretty clearly an error in punctuation and interpretation. Surely
Gower and Strode are both addressed in the second person:
To the, moral Gower, and the, philosophical Stoode,
as appears by the following plural,
Of youre benignites and zeles goode.
a
Reviews 467
Finally, lest anyone should suppose that all the cruxes in the Troilus
have been satisfactorily explained, it may be noted in conclusion that Mr
Root has handed on unsolved to his successors the problems of here and
howne (iv, 210) and kankedort (ii, 1752). The reviewer, on receiving the
book, turned first to the notes on these passages in the hope of enlight-
enment, and found none. And he is still without a suggestion to offer.
F. N. Rosinson,
Harvard University.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOOKS RECEIVED
UnpbeEr this heading Specu.um will list the titles of all books and mono-
graphs on mediaeval subjects as soon as they are received from author or
publisher. In many cases the titles here listed will be reviewed in a future
issue.
T. E. AMerrnaer, The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of
St John Chrysostom, Washington: Catholic University, 1921.
J. Breck, The Cloisters, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926.
G. Frank, ed., Rutebeuf, le Miracle de Théophile (Classiques Franc. du Moyen Age), Paris:
Champion, 1925.
F. L. Gansnor, Etude sur les ministeriales en Flandre et en Lotharingie (Mémoire couronné
par |’Académie Royale de Belgique), Brussels: Lamertin, 1926. Review in preparation.
A. H. Gripert, Dante's Conception of Justice, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 1925.
Review in preparation.
M. GraBMANN, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben: Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Scholastik und
Mystik, Munich: Hueber, 1926. Review in preparation.
P. HacENn, tr., Mahungen zur Innerlichkeit: Eine Urschrift des Buchs von der eee Christi,
Liibeck: Schmidt-Rémhild, 1926.
H. C. Lawzor, The Monastery of Saint Mochaot of Nendrum, Belfast: Natural History and
Philosophical Society, 1925.
H. E. Mrrerow, The Roman Provincial Governor as He Appears tn the Digest and the Justinian
Code (Colorado Coll. Publ. Lang. Ser. ITI, No. 1), Colorado Springs, Col. July, 1926.
C. W. Prerté-Orton, Z. N. Brooke, ed., The Cambridge Medieval History (New York:
Macmillan, 1926), Vol. V. Review in preparation.
H. Prrenne, Medteval Cities (F. D. Halsey, tr.), Princeton: University Press, 1925.
H. L. Savage, ed., St Erkenwald (Yale Studies in English, No. LXXII), New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1926. Review in preparation.
E. N. Stone, tr., Adam: A Religious Play of the Twelfth Century (Univ. of Wash. Publ., IV,
2, pp. 156-193), Seattle: Univ. of ie Press, 1926. Review in preparation.
L. THorRNDIKE, Short History of Civilization, New York: F. S. Crofts, 1926. Review in
preparation.
fe
¥
ih
ak
eee
re Yao - r
lin “x a ¥.\
Se
ERNST et
. a. : »
Ratt! eh 3
7 ) : ie
ates) Lo
pe ER TS,
St te ee oe
n< : vr,
- re er
- ~~ : : 4
R
; Foe » ey
‘a 4y, ae “s
che Xs ; baat 3
| AD
A
a
. -
7
y
™
=a
.S
>
ae
-
x
™,?
i>
2
ws
ye
+
>
,
i
ey
ae
gis
yen
=
fy
en te
baste
ae
a
a
Se
eat c ms Pg
: a > Pr, '
ee Ae . 7
7 ; r : “4 -
2 z
are
—
oe ce
=" £
= ts
aS a
wv ~
ee
Son
a
a
oe
ig
ue
“e
.
oe
=
v
Sy
“ . ‘
ahs
nie
SOE A
Te St ee tod
Pe
7 vw
7 -
7 :
Vee - re Ss
Nee bree ee
eet 2 Aj -
<> ‘ x
o~
‘Ly
7A ” Ay yy Ty t : be as =" 7,
- au k, “ : He oe Rega ft ST oe a
7) en 3, P of Se RP es . ’
ee he CUT eI sty ees
RED Cain Pus Dn ies os ORs ear catae Bi S ts
ue cy yan i i, ang ee 2 Sh ee yerier Ean wo S16 fan roars
- a), em a 2 5% ‘ Wor 723" ti Tad ™“ Abe - ay : ip Oe Ay re
Sgt ce ee ohh gs EEN Ai eRe Stl Na CE SR :
Ppa Gr rag ar ve Ti.
v4, , a ee Pt ~ “”
- Y Rie 3 . iS . ni ae 4 o4 ee ae iF *
a = robe a
| I RE SSRN
“™ Vy ° . & . . ae OA aa 1%. we, . 7 7
har ge Fis 5 <li hi - War : j
Abi: Las ia : > ee | : ,
eee #
sl
A
— Jee
*
. 41S
Per
a
. J
.
e
>
eps
oe |
r,§ Haat ot fl ¢ ‘ Fy Pe Ce it bet cy ee ey i ae Bean
7 " eerie 9 y -_ 4 “ oa ys tie we Cre ove? Mi oY Rie os pf . y “4
Vy ' ¥ y “2 a NY 7 DIN=2 FF ba j roid atta tore a, 7 Co Je ri. 4
oe gh Pte Nae HOR RR SHER vee Sa A, ee
oy OFS ee fe Med sii nae oy st LY, re oe 2 eo
Kas rhe "he ¥
7 “yy
a
"oa ig)
i
a
, cree Sy / ‘eek: ‘se rr “y" ; yal sy : ur a
6 rey a ae Fae SUF Men r aaah a) ave | is oe LO a
Rt) tr + eins) ba eine te Ne Oar
Digitized by Google
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT
TOs 202 Main Librar
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date.
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
MOOSE zp
“23 29 1996
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY, CA 94720
|
GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY
BO0074b493
-
4
ee
Digitized by (Goo
‘+
“se ee ©
er ee Fe Cee
P Peres oy - *
we Ma! re ee
ee ee Oh
oe FEW OOF EEO hee ° errr ” ~
epee ee ee eee , te ded ek See
phere a Pl Ss ,'} . v* . » “
a ontaanies sorors . + coed a>
newgne » one “+ ; aa io oe ae 25 5
At onge ao ere elegy
ls 4 4-0" “4 ; ’ i ”* oe &ee : » ‘ .r ~~
r e + 's . ae Da : : 4 —
vr" ee ‘ rr rhe
Seer. Ath eek nae
~*~ 2+ ee She oF ore pre
r, rere
+
‘7
teen = ~~ Pe A ee ee ee lee Le ee)
“ e ** @e+¢e07" ane er TGS rns Rows Soset ces reentratdare
= . or e+e ®enuaee o- eee ‘ — + oe er i oe ee es eo oe 7 eo or oy Path pals
‘ _ , . ‘ + ves | « tn ‘ ; 7 OO! @§ oe 0 ew epee 42 6 4 roe ee 8 Fe ¢ eyed o oot Can
: 4 ‘a6 os oe a . ‘«- ’ . ‘ PBeex - oo 4 1 6 OF +e SS ee ee pee ok dee + © + eed 9+ tpg gt
> . ** dese oe 4 Q e ° ; J moll 2 4 oa sé _—_ oat ew) 9Oa s ee ee ee ee 2 nan <
mer Ad ee *-* . eee ‘ . a . oe a s “Oe +s 1a8 on ‘Ss . - : ‘
. he FISK, ** + -@e = é¢ ’ ‘ e : C0446 48 OOO F* +. 66 f PESOS. OC enie ne
* ee +76 Ay ft | wld + = | hops . —* - is’ on “Se PY pep d eos pone A bw s eek nd 4 web e Po pieekeen ete Fobe
** ’ . * a wid 7s ; , . ° ** a 7 #e ve Fh Mp pag fe jeue-e | eden tnien pyr ngishe re p, moe! &
, - —w - ya A — . ® 6 pao TI > al es APF TS ile Oe ee ee CFF -o ene wm eee Or
: a - fz - @ens ‘es ‘ : . 7 p oe - n rete , PP Ap FE ODOR ES HEN ETE Ot EH HO he wee re wey
4s +.@ere * - o.¢ ’ : 7 . * + . e*
‘ : ‘ . " ° me ' * @er #e88 o “a? ° Pas é #e. ax ‘en ee
—" rams eee es @¢e+ *¢¢ * , og | : * ° ‘* we
. Pah aa. rae - 2° ; Sere ee ° ° .? Sie ox sa” $e 6 e+ -/ ' iu catele! NCH : {
“ mS 4 ~~ 2 7: » 4 wo! . > ' ay ee ' * yeee@a® v4 eS rr hws - ’ ry ’ peters eS =
° ° ; i - « ‘ ye M 7 a"
“ff Ps vs me ° ‘eur "6 q«9 A pha’ t Per. Spy ee ae so “one ome ‘e “ “6 oe eNO sie
-* ’ o* . ‘ ~? -* . *
, - = ¢ ° om 6 . i ,+o- “se . id es «6 * SOP etre of : Pp an ;
“e /-* we x A deat . tert tee . OO 864; aga so. . - ' i “*e « a Fo ert uae:
Md . « ’ > + e s” - . e sere ° . . - és . a ’ ,
r" - ~ - ’ 4 . : <« ‘ 4 ~~ . P e . , cco : evel saee ‘ee hs TF" / O62 OA OI
‘ . * . rd ° > yt eb . ‘* ® ° © : ae amy 7s ad a ba TF BOT Ie 8 OR8 we iawe Sanaa .
o ~~ wt. 4 ‘ ? “Stee oe oe? ees jb ae a vy 9 + "2 oo o
. , 2. * ¢«@ . ° « - . te . e ‘ m — ps de A + 7 ~ A . eee ,
' -* . : ¢-# 6 ’ , 4.4 ‘ . ‘ Siasa ne ee ee eee A? §
5 ’ ’ 64 «+ , oe pe opt re etee . “7
; - - ot. _* - - - . . .* ¢« ** : , ®iwds ~ , i, . ‘eer tpt ow! wit Ts ry Ye oe
..ve -e ‘ . : ; *- se "Or taes @+* . ‘* ‘Oe “foot : a! ae Span tt Pore ;
“ . =o ¢+ ‘ «ef ~ ~*~ were ** *#e ' . . ’ . as oes ** '* 4604+ eee @@ bom + OO Ue> pes 9b ra
“ aes . 4 eee ’ ’ ‘4 ' ~— ;
- « 4 s ‘a — om 4as ‘ ‘2-8 ¢samn 6 ht am bell Lowe eee: . eo
7 die . e- SL paey or oar Dandie Pe dX Sy en Oe ae Oty eae
. . ‘ ‘ a ah al A -* *
‘ Pp oor ° ‘ee + -@e9.r ter tee moog aA A nS
. - . ~ as “t@er- o =e *¥ oe 9 06 on 4 Oe ar
‘ » ° ° : se s é6 ’ > “ a “+ 2 4. - es KET te ae
é . . si> “2? “a ‘
; : . 089. Fs 9 Pads he ODS os oon Orr
_ * - ie ion , J pha ‘or © Fe geo 44 #4 64 Oe
c - 4 * FP ‘« ; . e . r To a **
- ' ere . . ' oor a ee i pyrotnd wl”
; , . a . he . 5 aed : a aby ’ ,*
ne ‘e - ° , se heer 4 ‘ --*
. bes 4 Feelee Lttelewoee OT ge sees tears
J > * ° ‘rer eo ra & -.*
= 7 - ® . & ° * , * ne - res ea p< e, We ee he ‘Sed wee a
: z : . . ‘to* , ST LY PAP rer et omen Py
e 4 4464 eer se . 6+ 664-.<«e0@ *te- ay weer nol ate cael wonteate ras
4 - * Pel A» he eed StAs -o ioe re et ee r~~see4, : 0) Fo ale ee aes o
- - "Sn se@ ts +9 "nse ets boteinad * tit #7) ner - - rrr = Ar oaiern
- aes ar, + Py. 7 on ey eae mk fo ese Bl mate : 29S 00 O99 we wre 0: Ong he ee 4
4 “os *s . . a ° o4+.¢e4tina a. Oe > f emer nde ah een ae
env oe +d sy OFF § a tegee ’
; 007 - ~ Sade ~ Ly oe by ms yy om yw Pak tae 8 Ort eh we os ge ees rw 4 ‘ an
A : “* o's eee +e ‘6 oF ’ . err re “F Cw Sse res eee tae 4 Re
¢-@r- ° ‘+ +e BARE Bs rr «46 fem eee Pe. ; os oy
o =e" : ‘a a ee ee PUB i stwe bey , ‘ REE.
_ ous « sed 7S ° . ‘ bd ‘ : ’ : ot . 4 Lae
ee: "ve 7 ™ Come ome “0° *¢4ers ** Pabst tose a! - a+ “
: Pee+ *@--f 0 @ >= °? Ore s
- +-4e¢
- Ae 4 é ry ~~ o- “ gery, ade’ ‘wr* we
e . - i”
AZ. -e@. 42 @@ a aie fet, ad de net gh ’
a c=--~ . : hte tl “ets “o's PTO 9 a BO oe He
3 7 o> + P~ 9 wwe ~—*. “Je
~* ‘ee « 7% > 6&0 UO om" o> # tOe+e ‘aerre
- = le ieee ~p ‘< ' “6 > e oe. . : ‘ ~ . we .
’ « “ ¢
. - ve. ** eer re se/ 4*4ere ae -~e* re . *.
: o . Sewer re Wd ee rier ut *.* ry
. . ° oe «46s 24 ° . n ¢
AJ — *- - ° “Ce Ps See 2 - o- he — he
- ~ 7 - ate San] © OG TP SS ve teem Ors . yt
ni a . - “eee re ,
. **e# ee ee “** 7 o——e ‘ 0 HO Tr eee SL eee
— O08 4+ Meee nn. Oeturs nog. 28 Ori HOG 1 lee ss + © Peae
* “-e&@< - wre, +e or e@rrvee+ ww * **er 6.4 60): Get 484-4
o- . * Stee wee... ‘ ee obey FOF Oss ++ paw 9 ¢°) OQ 44
x - +**s +e a # © ’ TVS or on Or Oo P94 eS @ ¢* 1G s
oa —_‘- = - « ay age a. . 1 Ore eer , th eeee* ~ OPPO peews ; ay Sa
, * ‘ sep fy” - um bs ele C4 OM inet i a ba ttch bd al pL aby: et ed els bed
» © .-* ond * “eet ee« -*+ on
P *-—-*—s< 4 «se ° é - a rd
e fre ve. . CrOusteae wees ows) lh ee on Anat se
- ° @-« - * - Pons . -"® Aen APS J pe Padi Mae oe rr Ose
‘@- re or my } . Pe aE ek eed sel)
yh Emo m ‘ oe hans ‘tos ‘ote a ag” “t, wo Nia tes ri Cvseete i
. . - ton," « Py ore ee". “0-9 ‘. : Pmt = Se ne ee ee ee ey ? .
a. . “ oe 7 eer Pe ere) er “92 1a Gie OO" + Hes - ‘ ater Sone OE OM eve tow te
- —— > ASPB e «++ wan AO See eee Se yf doh Se “4 Oem 0 Vids aaern~ ee. 9are th we Fe Fed rhs 3 * . [creese Ph ele yy 4
. = a r : oe AE oO E48 ©) ba FOG POE HS 8 OB COPO Ht Ce DR caanogs ft. leet OOE Uo 4424 64 Oe 1 Oe he. see Yeeee Pew ue
- Zz - - ’ , : - _ a ts Nong PAF ba My 5*.¢ 4° -_ 5 , f “a Pal T dy ‘e —)P ee, ee hale
nt uc - . YT . , a+ 4 as" . -@ « owes ©2608 reer re Pe tere + po . .
° = — +> es — 24 ° r - — 96 - bwausoe *¥ See. ¢ HOE HES . ee te nh . a -+ee mA AM he ‘s4 4 0 @4
» - . ° ° . » 4 i 24 & . ‘ PA Pad v4 es ee Jes ~<- 4 teeet 400804 bb enna ere eet ene?
-_ . owen gl » 7 - P - -* » ** a> ae at, ‘pee 0 & +00 64 alee egn@ ant 4 -- + ~ 5 .
rw oy a0 . * ide eo, . : + «© ©= 684 e4ee8 a. mary AP ahs wal wry Fe EOE Al “04 Tog a etn ee Ne
ae - “ ; Sep - Bae 02-68 pane 7 hee 3 asset o> e-qek hee AAre TU Ane Ae eeu need er ees
4 x E : “ ° hg: deter nae tne CP 8 oes FOC OP GE HOOVES Cosa tenen be ur tebebeweene pe ererk tear
“+ Oe om - * -* : * ° y ~~ ——- “2 - ’ ~ see pee Pa dee inn a “hP9O +8 Oa a eer rirri@ (free b&w
“~~ - 4 a e e - <u . ae oe * efe4-«* -* taeveee «eee ng 104288 - so peaee - + pres
~ *- - — — andy ont A ~~ ~~ . . “o@meeeeee ” meee ’ {+ ee ge ee). +H bee «
> @ - o "tee =? . © e089 GS COOR 1668 784 we bie giy : .%
"35 oe a — sd ° - ded *s9@e ogsea ’ + €* oor UL Tie eee PLP OI rena nah 1 6 mr be
. = -¢ t= . - ’ > “ae * - O60 1 6e~ £9 990s tee PFS. OSC OO, DOSES IM DP UUNLSSS VeLaae VOL etonnd peeberal lode is lanienaatiret
as _— «4 * ’ 26 ey ey Fe ais : ag dnd hh hth. Duensing Bg r
. ‘ a ° a ~ * * er ‘ ‘ . Oe oe we ° ed Be a ery | ste mh ORF ee eee &
— = - Pe. 20 “* ee “* CT ee ee ee 7 ve: =e y f Ad hot id ;
eh — _—=3 ie ms - . — io ae Sdceet rues ee @e; ., poo Py a ht hele les Ce ye Aes ee eae 7
™ . - —s) ie - , * y . - Pee & wert thet SF O 9b 0.8) cay + “He ° J :
an - rr eaer~s ~— 4 ma - te 728 me od el r selene Oe Ci et ie keen ereeer Pe er ft 1 I!
- @+«6<0+« - - ° ° « re Ui aa ** os . eee ‘ se Te # . ty Ce eo e. mht de . iwe + treet herr eey boon + Ome ee Lee cle Tp ee eee
>’ eT See. & «@ . Jane - - po * eS . * “a e*5 Pe tlh PP oT COTE & ae SO Fb hm bo ek Oh entree bee pail er mee ae
- + ge * ‘ ‘* . /e* C8 Oe Abt gy et ee A oe ee Se 2 oe Dee ee ae ee
Ae ‘ - / : << 7 ef". nape - oe DO 90% OFS OG BUG 0 OO i049 wi de Henle O HEF ghiegs #08 bh 8d dda Adee bor aor 1 or
whee o- : e = of? ° ee o+e-s yy Dinh Pub Meith lll teil Mont Lee PIES Te ele ee tee canal) ieee
+ Oe me 666 +c - Py ld a oP 2S «4 ‘ d . od hr? yet PM tay a ihe wee ~* ni
= . e . e ¢ gi ‘ . *
= _ oa oe > ad o@ ‘ - Ps ~ _ ~ fe eerrvree ys . ct ny A ie ys #4 a elt aps a Mie edlivalaketeten tts oe pd
' +O eee ——— - oom = + ° : . A aa et « y= eA, eet Cee eee h My eP ere e Co, eh ae es + +ee iw + oh eee
- ° _ « “ee «* . = » - 4 a *<te? ee ee 2 er 2 | oe 4 “eye de a Ee
> 7 WO Sul =~ -- - ° em See @eeer ef a Steaet OO dO Oho wen pe " + dn OOo es ot
« 2° J _— ‘ + ° © Ar ** ° “ re seat nie on a 5 gy > + Semeng ne ee ee ‘
— p.. + can oa ha . e bond a me AP ae . , f oe tere ae Ce ah & & freer ger & -
° -—--* 7 . ‘7° oe 6 - ‘= P 4 P , eo” : “wees [ Roe Pie ey eur 2c" 6-0 e pirate tedaly
os ~_e ’ és an ar _ ° -* me toe 7 ‘ 4 : e . SF et) eon Gee eee ee ee ee Pe "
er @ee (8 ** i. a “re ¢ a47 _— ates ‘ ‘« 7 . 7+ er : 64.4 4m ele Fw Nery See Hae 7 & 6 0- Oe =
em . s-—<—¢ - . *-* .. ° . - ~ . ‘or bees *- tcear py Soi + 4@ 1 Pelee rer gh. sie Noo we he bie rig ooh ee seus ; ~” omg
o—~s Bs we —~ > +» co «? ‘(o-- +7 a46 ad ‘oo * ' ‘* ’ art iy (+ 2e © ee oe Hah gt me *
“ou “505 - Sao - are b= 7 -<@ ~~ ry ee Ant Fotos o6apul Be lrat Mase 4 ° Oda biaah cel eeret tp lool ryrrpr , ; Coareres ws
-—— ~_~ - » ° PY * ‘ ‘ . -~ - : ‘ : oe om ' aie
2verdr- © 7. Stow ; = - aoe en . - p fee Pom. 6a AA +--+ — vty A ; ev0 0454 wO~ 26 ‘ ale oh Pou ree oe wg eae non)
Ses: pf: °*-* ss. *- ? o> ‘ — *~- “+7 6.4@B6ke 7 Pgh 7 owe seth Ay, nd , tooe-| = ~
- —* . * ‘ > : . sad . -*
Cue C0ogs Berean oa? $082 am 4=n@66044 20-9 ° > . SA" ad De ea teatied tg Am " O#« 2 mas slide bt 041 ras eminioeeiarat! , ' ‘ ne +e
te om ne Sees Sina! L° LPS fs Cap ve ao oS etal ciate ‘ ete Sat Ay —~ steitles ae O20. 6% Way SPF. ie ol tees ct irre a po v" M : . ch ety
> o - . - s al. . =e - . . *. * ‘ fi - ‘ : p P
e ——- eC enel ae = e+ oe <* reeds Ab tu sa ebde meh hae Fg p jer Ate ; . 00 tp). ne eon e+e 4 Pe TE ‘ee ies ‘gbersia
r* "8 '+ Sew e-. - » es : ~< "@e0ee* « ere. aeon+e* aha a 7 ‘ @-é6. * . sa ‘sere +aes-ia wre t poet e oe
ean eT) , = - ° s J oer . —s + _ BRE eh nae ~+* “. 2-44 @e-e vrenrnre 1? oe ve! 4.9 @4 0 “4
ry ano a . ~ + “~~ + — <—+ ge _ ‘oe ae 5A °. » se . * “ae 2 @1t<6 666 ene , AS ~7 ay a ey Jp <acteeas .* nds Fes POLE et ©.6 ius. Fee
oceue woe es ° —~ ie , 7 —, "4+ ere a ~ 86666 ‘ — &. aude J yt a ~ Sr ae Les ee 2; Or 0G + Bt tro Wore Oe hte gee © be)
As sr 7 _o* are “ms coo ~ e ‘os my o.><> sy" = ‘yp er es as levee eee * vn
— Xe ‘ A ‘Je ove tee ’ - td) oy wes Tree yoy 9 tee 8 Os eee mew ne
~s «> o - - we S . - ° > one rae @ a > is
* . : '
1 ~ e a4 - + ‘ : - ~~? yy ers i @Ff is
eerste @ebe« a . s ° o~ a — ee - -re = - ° - - +? = 7 were s 4
m1 + o e ine aol i obama teh Ang oe 2 Pi +o ae 2 — Oe + 4g eo eee
—? ° * wr ” s ete 4 + se PT eee ed
fr —_ bo-cn " _s ws ef - e+ oun ti @ Po S= ne a * 4 ey LA, eh dy ee
: oh dn - o i, a ¢ +e . _ oot ~ «* ~m—see ee ~~@ Y en Pie @ aS OF TS? Senet
+S OE” OO)” +4 “** OOF ey ere) ow ne ~0 = -—=—e .
pete enh adeos.,..’,’s
: PO rn ee
: and we *- ap ; - :
aan alt) &* 206866800 Gee + « © 4 28S r>+eE eee. | eee
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11